Science Facts & Fallacies

Distribution of genetically engineered crops to developing countries proves that "colonialism in science is still alive and well," alleges one Slate contributor. Is there any evidence to support such an allegation? CRISPR-edited eggs could spare billions of male chicks a gruesome death. First came plant-based meat, and now Adidas is turning fungi into shoes to reduce its use of animal products.

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:

* Earth-friendly shoes: Adidas developing sustainable leather alternative made from fungus

Adidas and other shoe makers are turning fungi and plants into leather substitutes to attract consumers concerned about sustainability and animal welfare. Their latest product utilizes mycelium, "the mass of branched, tubular filaments (hyphae) of fungi." Just how eco-friendly are these new shoes, and will they win the industry the pro-environment reputation its after?

* CRISPR-edited eggs offer novel way to eliminate slaughter of newborn male chicks

Billions of male chicks are slaughtered every year shortly after they hatch, usually by grinding, because they're too skinny to be used as meat and they can't lay eggs. "It's like manufacturing a billion chairs and then throwing half of them away," says Yehuda Elram, co-founder of biotech startup eggXYT. To eliminate this gruesome, costly outcome—producing chickens only to kill them is an expensive endeavor—the Israeli company has devised a technique that adds a genetic marker to male eggs with CRISPR gene editing. The eggs then glow when passed through a scanner, which allows them to be identified and repurposed for use in medical research or as animal feed.

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

SIGN UP

The technology, if it becomes widely used, could offer consumers more ethical food, Elram claims, and reduce the egg industry's carbon footprint, since incubating billions of ultimately useless eggs consumes a lot of energy.

*

How do COVID-19 tests work, and are their results reliable? Recent media reports have raised some concerning questions. Amazon's Halo band, one of the latest personal health trackers to hit the market, has received harsh reviews and created privacy concerns about how the company uses its customers' personal health information. One farmer says her colleagues need to "celebrate pesticides" as a means of assuaging the public's food safety fears

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 tests often yield false results, underscoring the limits of testing to control pandemics

PCR-based COVID tests have been advertised as a crucial tool to help bring the pandemic to an end. But recent revelations of many false positive and false negative results have raised questions about the reliability of the tests so far deployed. In August 2020, the New York Times published an analysis showing that the "standard [COVID] tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus." And a recent Washington Post report underscored these concerns:

National coronavirus test shortages have emphasized testing’s critical role in containing and mitigating the pandemic, but these inconvenient truths remain: A test result is rarely a definitive answer… The result itself may be falsely positive or negative, or may show an abnormality that doesn’t matter. And even an accurate, meaningful test result is useless (or worse) unless it’s acted on appropriately.

How do these tests work, and how confident can we be in their ability to accurately detect COVID-19 infection? Understanding the limitations of coronavirus testing, and disease diagnosis more generally, could help us better mitigate future pandemics before they become pandemics.

* Viewpoint: Halo Band not ready for primetime – Amazon’s invasive wearable health tracker gets a poor review

Personal fitness trackers like the Apple Watch and Fitbit have grown popular as consumers turn to technology to help develop good exercise and eating habits and monitor health markers like body fat and sleep time. Amazon recently entered the market with its Halo band, but it appears the tech giant, so good at producing Kindles and Fire Sticks, may have missed the mark this time around.

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

SIGN UP

The leading COVID-19 vaccines are RNA-based immunizations and the first of their kind. How do they work, and are they safe? CRISPR gene editing kills tumor cells in mice and may prove to be an effective replacement for chemotherapy. A controversial study out of Denmark suggests that masks may not offer much protection from coronavirus infection, but some experts say the results have been exaggerated.

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:

* Infographic: What are mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and how do they work?

RNA-based COVID-19 vaccines teach your body how to make the spike protein SARS-COV-2 uses to cause infection; this triggers an immune response that will protect you from the virus should you be exposed to it. As at-risk populations begin receiving the first doses of these vaccines, alternative health proponents allege that they're based on untested technology and may cause potentially serious side effects. Is there any evidence to support these claims? And do we really know the vaccines are safe and effective?

* Cancer breakthrough replacing chemotherapy? Israeli scientists use CRISPR gene editing to snip DNA and kill killer cells

"A more elegant chemotherapy." That's how scientists at Tel Aviv University in Israel described their effort to treat cancer with CRISPR. The researchers used the gene-editing technique to tweak the DNA of tumor cells in mice suffering from glioblastoma, a brain cancer, and metastatic ovarian cancer.

Treated animals in the study had double the life expectancy of the control group, and a 30% higher survival rate. The research team now plans to develop the treatment for all cancers and begin testing it in humans within two years. If they are successful, we may be on track to eliminate the use of cancer therapies that often have severe side effects.

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

SIGN UP

* Conservative media touts Danish study raising doubts about mask effectiveness. Health experts say that’s dangerous

A randomized, controlled trial of more than 3,000 people conducted in Denmark recently found that "a recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance,

Should trans women be allowed to compete in female-only sports? It's a polarizing question with no easy answer in a society that wants to protect women's rights while also respecting the transgender community. A new study suggests that men and women require different glioblastoma therapies, indicating that there are hard-wired brain differences between the sexes. Peru is poised to renew its GM crop moratorium for 15 years to preserve it's status as a "GMO-free country." The problem? Peruvian farmers have been cultivating GM crops for years.

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: Transgender rights and sports: Should trans women be permitted to compete in female-only sports?

A society that believes in equality should allow transgender women to compete in female sports, right? No, say many female athletes, who feel they will be at a competitive disadvantage and may face an elevated risk of injury if they have to compete against trans women, who are stronger and faster than they are. "Transgender athletes deserve our respect," writes lawyer and competitive swimmer Sandra Bucha, "but that respect must be mutual:

Women and girls are being displaced by biologically male athletes, who have clear physical advantages. Again, it is the female athlete who is being denied a spot on the team, the pursuit of a dream, and being told to watch from the sidelines. That’s regression, not progress.

So, how does America advance the cause of transgender rights while also safeguarding the progress women have made over the past several decades? There may be no easy solution.

* Men and women require distinct brain tumor therapies, underscoring hard-wired differences in the brain

A new study, not yet peer-reviewed and published on the preprint server bioRxiv, has found that glioblastomas (the most aggressive tumors of the brain) occur at 60% higher rates in males and may have to be treated differently depending on the sex of the patient. The researchers say the differences are likely due to the unique effects of a gene called Brd4 observed in male and female patients. According to Dr. Liji Thomas:

The current study shows that the sex differences in the tumor phenotype vary with the effect of the enhancer regulatory molecule bound to Brd4 on the course of stem cell-like differentiation in male and female [glioblastoma] cells. Inhibition of Brd4 by genetic and pharmacological factors also varies in males and females .... Thus, GBM cells in males are less likely to form new clones and tumors are less likely to grow, following Brd4 inhibition. The opposite occurs in female cells and tumors.

The study could enable physicians to better care for glioblastoma patients based on their unique biological characteristics. The more lasting impact of the research may be to underscore that disease treatments have to be developed with the hard-wired differences between men and women in mind.

* Ba...

Could the COVID-19 pandemic end anti-GMO activism as we know it? Environmentalists are split over the controversial weedkiller glyphosate; some say it's a cancer-causing "poison," while others argue it's a vital tool for protecting biodiversity. A predatory science journal recently published a study blaming a Pokémon character for an outbreak of SARS-COV-2.

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: Biotechnology gave us a COVID vaccine. Could that end the anti-GMO movement?

As the pandemic proceeds, it appears the anti-GMO movement may be running out of steam. Initial hints of this development surfaced in early November when the organic industry-funded outfit U.S. Right to Know shifted its focus from food safety issues to concerns about the origin of SARS-COV-2, rebranding itself as "an investigative research group focused on promoting transparency for public health."

USRTK says it is seeking "information about leaks and other mishaps at biosafety labs and the risks of gain-of-function research, which aims to increase the lethality or infectivity of potential pandemic pathogens." According to microbiologist Alex Berezow, the transition is USRTK's attempt to remain relevant while keeping their "GMOs are bad narrative" alive.

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

SIGN UP

* Glyphosate: Deadly ‘poison,’ or biodiversity protection tool? Environmentalists split over controversial weedkiller

Several high-profile environmental groups have come out against the weedkiller glyphosate, alleging it causes cancer and ought to be banned as a result. As it turns out, this isn't a consensus position among activists. Some groups, particularly those focused on protecting biodiversity, say the herbicide is relatively safe and incredibly effective against invasive weeds that threaten native plant species.

Without access to glyphosate, say these groups, preservation efforts would require the use of more toxic chemicals and mechanical weeding, which may not be enough to preserve Australia's precious biodiversity.

*

If you oppose lockdowns to stop the spread of COVID, are you a science denier, a covidiot? Potentially dangerous genetically engineered organisms could be released into society by unscrupulous governments and terrorists. Experts are rapidly developing countermeasures, but will they be enough? Contrary to the claims of self-improvement gurus and gym bros, men who eat plant-based burgers will not develop "man boobs."

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: Calling Great Barrington Declaration endorsers ‘COVID deniers’ itself denies there are better strategies than lockdowns to contain the pandemic

Are society-wide lockdowns the best way to bring this pandemic to a swift end? No, say signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration, who instead advocate for an approach known as "focused protection." Rather than keeping everyone in their homes to cut virus transmission, the three academics behind the alternative pandemic response argue that at-risk populations (primarily the elderly and people with preexisting conditions) could be isolated, while children and young adults "live their lives without lockdown restrictions."

This, they claim, moves us closer to herd immunity without inflicting unnecessary collateral damage associated with the current policy. Is this a realistic response to COVID-19, or a textbook example of science denial?

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

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.Name *Email *CommentSIGN UP

* A question of accountability: How can we prevent the release of potentially harmful human-created organisms?

Advances in biotechnology are making it cheaper and easier than ever to utilize genetic engineering in agriculture and medicine. But how do we stop terrorists, totalitarian regimes and other bad actors from using tools like CRISPR-Cas9 to release potentially dangerous GE organisms? Regulators, biotech firms and independent scientists are working on preventative strategies, but there is disagreement among experts about how effective these measures will be.

* Eating plant-based burgers doesn’t cause ‘man boobs’

Rest easy, men. You can enjoy a plant-based burger without fear of developing gynecomastia, "man boobs" in the vernacular.

Monsanto never sued farmers because their fields were accidentally contaminated with the company's GM seed. AquaBounty's genetically engineered AquAdvantage salmon may be headed for grocery stores in early 2021, despite ongoing activist-group litigation. Ignore the food gurus; food ingredients are safe—even if you can't pronounce them.

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:

* David v Goliath? What reporters and activists got wrong about 3 high-profile Monsanto patent suits

Anti-GMO groups and reporters have for years claimed that Monsanto wrongly sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement, helping fuel the public's skepticism of biotech crops and the scientists who develop them. But when this idea was put to the test in court, it failed spectacularly.

In March 2011, the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA) sued Monsanto to stop the company from suing farmers whose farms were ‘contaminated’ by genetically engineered seeds. The biotech giant argued it had never sued growers because its GM seeds accidentally landed in their fields, and the court agreed. "After a careful reading of the decision, and looking past the necessary niceties of legalese," writes GLP contributor Marc Brazeau, "one gets the very clear sense of a plaintiff being laughed out of court."

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

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.Name *Email *EmailSIGN UP

* AquaBounty ‘on track’ to sell GM salmon by year’s end, despite court ruling calling for more environmental impact data

After 30 years of development and regulatory review, AquaBounty's fast-growing GM salmon is poised to hit grocery stores in 2021, making it the first genetically engineered animal to be approved for human consumption. But even as the biotech startup nears the finish line, it (alongside the FDA) is battling activists in court committed to keeping the fish off the market. Led by the Center for Food Safety, these anti-biotech groups claim the salmon poses an unprecedented threat to its wild relatives, should it escape into the ocean. How likely is it that AquaBounty's AquAdvantage salmon will makes its way into the wild?

* Don’t eat it if you can’t pronounce it? Avoiding ‘scary-sounding ingredients’ won’t make you healthier

We've all heard this rule of thumb: don't eat any food ingredient you can't pronounce, the assumption being that anything with a complex, chemical name must be unnatural and thus potentially harmful. In reality, this shortcut to reading food labels makes little sense. The safety and nutritional qualities of food don't change based on how complicated the ingredient list is. Don't believe us?

How do well-meaning, educated parents become vaccine skeptics? One hypothetical couple's journey may shed light on the process. Some scientists are becoming increasingly partisan in their discussions of COVID science, which may be fueling distrust of evidence-based conclusions about the pandemic. GMO denialism could be a knee-jerk reaction caused by our inherent fear of new things: neophobia.

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:

* Are all anti-vaxxers kooks? Here is one couple’s journey to vaccine rejection and what might change their minds

The temptation to put down anti-vaxx parents as conspiracy theorists and simpletons is strong; it's also the worst possible approach to changing their minds about controversial science. Considering that these moms and dads are generally well educated and truly worried about their kids, a better approach may be to recognize the legitimacy of their concerns to establish a relationship, then address their misplaced vaccine fears.

* Scientists taking partisan stands on the coronavirus: Here comes the political backlash

The pandemic may be the best example of what happens when researchers and educators on opposing sides of a scientific issue take explicitly partisan stances. Some scientific institutions and publications, for example, endorsed political candidates and parties in the recent election, promoting them as the "pro-science" side in the dispute over how to best mitigate COVID-19. This raises a potential problem, notes Scientific American's Matt Motta. "When scientists advocate for their interests in an expressly political way, they risk further polarizing public opinion about research."

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

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.Name *Email *NameSIGN UP

So the question is this: are scientists appropriately advancing their cause by getting explicitly political, or are they undermining efforts to promote evidence-based thinking?

* Neophobia: The psychological barrier that inspires knee-jerk rejection of GMOs and other food technology

It appears that evolution has wired us to distrust new things. Novel ideas and behaviors, according to this theory, often posed mortal threats to our ancestors, so they developed a heightened skepticism of anything that challenged their understanding of the world. Once a reasonable survival instinct, this so-called "neophobia" now prompts us to quickly dismiss new information that could lead to important innovations that make life better. Does this phenomenon help explain why so many people deny the importance of biotech crops and others food technologies?

So-called 'cancel culture' has already taken down a handful of prominent scientists and philosophers, living and deceased. One evolutionary biologist warns Charles Darwin might be next. A former organic farmer says popular anti-GMO, anti-farming documentaries are little more than "propaganda." The USDA is poised to green light a disease-resistant, GM chestnut tree, but activist opposition remains intense. Will science-based thinking push it over the finish line?

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:

* Will ‘cancel culture’ claim Darwin?

A formidable scientist though he was, Charles Darwin endorsed some downright racist ideas. His bigoted comments about "savages" and "barbarians" and suspected support for eugenics have landed him in hot water in the era of "cancel culture." Because other prominent thinkers from the era, like philosopher David Hume, have already been "cancelled," some in the science community expect that it's only a matter of time before Darwin meets a similar fate. Can we acknowledge and reject Darwin's abhorrent comments about race without dismissing his key insights about biology?

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

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.Name *Email *CommentSIGN UP

* Cowspiracy? GMO OMG? Beware of misleading food ‘documentaries,’ ex-organic farmer warns

Documentaries like "Cowspiracy" and "GMO OMG" have found massive audiences thanks to streaming services like Netflix. But for all their flashy production value and compelling anecdotes, these films are nothing more than anti-science "propaganda," argues former organic farmer Jonathan Lawler: the "equivalent to what I shovel out of the cattle pens," he writes. What do these films get wrong, and why does the public find them so convincing?

* Viewpoint: Activists aim to block GM chestnut tree by hyping potential risks and ignoring real benefits

As the USDA considers green lighting the first-ever genetically engineered tree, a disease-resistant American chestnut, biotech skeptics have come out guns blazing to block the approval. They've fallen back on a handful of seemingly compelling arguments, warning that the disease resistance trait won't last; that it could hinder the chestnut's growth; and that it violates the property rights of indigenous groups in regions where scientists plan to release the GM trees. Do these claims stand up to scrutiny?

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.

There are thousands upon thousands of chemicals in food. Should we regulate them all, could we even do it? Gin and tonics might be an endangered species if scientists can't save juniper trees from an invasive fungus. Del Monte has commercialized the first-ever GM pineapple. Does this mean Americans are getting over their phobia of genetic engineering?

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:

* Regulate all chemicals in food? Two experts say that’s an ‘absurd (and impossible) exercise’

Activist group Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) claims there are 10,000 chemicals in the food we consume, and each substance should be monitored by regulators. What's wrong with this proposal? A lot, say two experts. There are far more than 10,000 chemicals in food as it turns out (coffee alone contains more than 1,000), so regulating every one of them is simply not possible.

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

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.Name *Email *PhoneSIGN UP

What food safety officials at the FDA actually do is carefully evaluate products before they're commercialized and then monitor their ongoing effects on public health. Because of this system, our chemical experts say, we know that "our food is already safe. The enormous effort required to examine minute levels of thousands of common chemicals won’t make it any safer. It’s just a waste of time and money."

* Goodbye gin and tonics? Invasive plant disease threatens juniper berries used to make gin

Juniper berries used to produce gin might soon be in short supply if a devastating fungus threatening juniper trees in the UK isn't brought to heel. The possible result: bye bye, gin and tonics. The good news is that plant breeders have identified some trees with natural resistance to the disease-causing fungus. If they can regenerate these heartier varieties in time, one of the world's favorite drinks could be spared an untimely death.

* Del Monte launches GM pineapple with pink flesh and sweeter flavor, 15 years in the making

After nearly two decades, Del Monte has finally released its genetically modified pineapple, which features a pink interior and a "sweeter, juicer" flavor than its conventional counterpart, but the two are otherwise identical. The "new pineapple has been genetically engineered to produce lower levels of the enzymes already in conventional pineapple that convert the pink pigment lycopene to the yellow pigment beta carotene," The FDA wrote in its consultation. "Lycopene is the pigment that makes tomatoes red and watermelons pink,