Groundbreaking gene therapies for deafness are coming online, but they're opposed by a surprising group of people—a subset of the deaf community. Embryo screening could spare future generations debilitating diseases, but this revolutionary technology may also have some serious downsides if we're not careful. Several US states are trying to outlaw lab-grown meat. Is this move justified, or just another example of one industry using the law against another?

Podcast:

Join hosts Dr. Liza Dunn and GLP contributor Cameron English on episode 258 of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories:

* Gene therapy has restored hearing for a second child. Here’s why some deaf people adamantly oppose treatment

Advances in gene therapy are now enabling physicians to treat, and maybe even cure, lifelong disabilities like deafness. But as these novel therapies enter the market, they're making enemies in the very communities they're designed to help. For example, some deaf people oppose a gene-editing procedure that could restore hearing in young children who would otherwise go through life in complete silence. Deafness isn't a medical condition in need of treatment, they argue, but an identity that should be preserved and respected. How do we walk the fine ethical line between treating patients we can help and protecting the autonomy of people who say they don't need medicine?

* Genetic embryo screening for health issues and IQ inch closer to reality. Here’s a primer on what you can expect

As our knowledge of genetics improves, scientists are beginning to screen embryos before they're implanted in hopes of identifying the ones who may be susceptible to serious diseases later in life. The upside is unmistakable: parents could significantly increase their child's odds of leading a healthy life before they're even born. But embryo screening may carry serious ethical risks we're not yet prepared to address. For instance, what do we do when parents want to use embryo screening to increase the chances that they will have a deaf child? Who's to say such a desire is wrong? These questions illustrate the complex issues we have to tackle before this technology is fully deployed.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

SIGN UP

* As a bill to ban cell-grown meat makes its way through the Florida legislature,

An heirloom seed company that prides itself on selling GMO-free products mistakenly put a genetically engineered tomato on the cover of its 2024 catalog. The anti-GMO movement appears to be in permanent retreat. Is the end of the "frakenfood" scare close? Bill Gates and other billionaire philanthropists do a lot of good around the world, but their critics say this generosity has a dark side.

Podcast:

Join hosts Dr. Liza Dunn and GLP contributor Cameron English on episode 257 of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories:

* Viewpoint: Non-GMO seed company mistakenly listed a seed in its catalogue that had a similar name to a genetically-modified tomato — prompting a bizarre tirade against “Big Ag”

Heirloom seed company Baker Creek put a purple-fleshed tomato on the cover of its 2024 catalog—only to later discover that it is almost certainly genetically engineered. That's according to Norfolk Healthy Produce, which recently commercialized its bioengineered, high-antioxidant Purple Tomato.  Norfolk says the "remarkable similarity" between the two plant varieties spurred laboratory testing which "supports the fact that the only reported way to produce a purple-fleshed tomato rich in anthocyanin antioxidants is with Norfolk's  patented technology." The discovery provoked an angry Facebook post from Baker Creek and raised some awkward questions about marketing GMO-free seeds.

* Five reasons why the anti-biotech movement is in retreat

The anti-GMO movement was a cultural force to be reckoned with a decade ago, launching dozens of GMO labeling campaigns across the US and drawing thousands of people to "march against Monsanto" protests in major cities. Today, though, the one-powerful anti-biotech campaign appears to be in retreat as it loses critical regulatory battles in Europe and public interest in its cause wanes. What led to this development? Let's examine five possible explanations for why anti-GMO activism fell by the wayside.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

SIGN UP

* Viewpoint: Causing more harm than good?

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) published a spurious attack on GM crops and pesticides, then reneged on its commitment to print a rebuttal. What happened? The Environmental Working group (EWG) is collaborating with tort lawyers to attack yet another pesticide.  A prominent nutrition researcher has grown skeptical of some of his earlier conclusions about "ultra-processed" food. Let's examine the evidence that led him to change his mind.

Podcast:

Join host  GLP contributor Cameron English and guest host Dr. Kevin Folta on episode 256 of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories:

* Viewpoint: Journal Pediatrics reneges on its commitment to print response to botched article claiming GMOs are harmful to children. Here’s what they censored

The AAP's flagship journal Pediatrics came under fire early this year for publishing a guidance document questioning the safety of biotech crops and pesticides. After several scientists contacted the journal to offer constructive criticism, AAP agreed to print a rebuttal to the original article. Inexplicably, AAP abruptly changed course, refusing to publish a response or even interact with the experts who criticized its analysis of GM crops.

* Viewpoint: Money grab — How the Environmental Working Group works hand-in-hand with tort lawyers to generate billion-dollar junk suits

Just two business days after EWG published a study attacking the herbicide chlormequat, tort lawyers in New York used the paper to justify filing a class-action lawsuit in California. They're suing Quaker Oats, which is owned by Pepsi, alleging that trace amounts of chlormequat in the breakfast cereal could cause fertility issues and harm developing babies. The study itself provides no evidence to support these allegations, so what are the lawyers thinking? It appears we have a pending billion-dollar junk lawsuit on our hands.

* Hyper-palatable food: Scientist who published the seminal study showing the dangers of all ultra-processed food backs away from his theory

It has become fashionable in recent years to blame America's growing obesity problem on "ultra-processed" food: highly palatable snacks and other packaged options that contain sugar, salt and fat. But this hypothesis might lose some of its prominence now that a prominent researcher in the field has backed away from his 2019 study linking processed food to weight gain. Dr. Kevin Hall, a scientist at the National Institutes of Health, now says there is little evidence that processing explains our rapid weight gain; the real problem may be that these foods are so flavorful that many people choose to eat more of them than they should, which promotes weight gain. Hall has plans to conduct a new clinical study to test this hypothesis.

Kevin M. Folta is a professor, keynote speaker and podcast host. Follow Professor Folta on X

Bad research in peer-reviewed journals is undermining the public's trust in science. What can experts do to stop the flow of flawed science into academic publications? It's the time of year when activist groups, with the media's help, scare the public about pesticides on food. Is the produce in your grocery store safe? Absolutely. Let's take a close look at the evidence.

Podcast:

Join host  GLP contributor Cameron English and guest host Dr. Kevin Folta on episode 255 of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories:

* Part I — Viewpoint: Why is trust in scientific research at an all time low?

Scientists have identified a troubling trend in peer-reviewed journals that publish original research: a growing number of the studies found in these publications are nonsense. Sometimes this is the result of outright fraud—cases where researchers fabricate or distort data. In other instances, it's an honest mistake that undermines the reliability of a study. Whatever the cause in a particular instance, unreliable research is a critical problem for two reasons. It pollutes the body of evidence we use to make public policy and solve practical problems, like treating disease. Bad studies also sow public distrust in scientific institutions. We need to resolve crisis as soon as possible. But how do we do it?

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

SIGN UP

* Viewpoint: Feeding your child 2,000 nectarines or 340 apples in one day? Environmental Working Group claims about the dangers of conventionally-grown produce are scientifically absurd

Pesticides approved for use in the US are carefully tested for safety before they enter the market, and then carefully monitored by regulators at multiple federal agencies. Moreover, independent research consistently shows that trace amounts of pesticides in our food don't pose a risk to human health. Each year, though, a handful of NGOs led by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) warn Americans that their food supply is tainted by potentially dangerous chemicals. Their disingenuous claims don't stand up to scrutiny.

Kevin M. Folta is a professor, keynote speaker and podcast host. Follow Professor Folta on X @kevinfolta

Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Visit

Technological innovations continue to debunk predictions that global population growth will lead to mass starvation. Some mental health experts are concerned that widespread internet access is exacerbating the effect of disorders like schizophrenia. Urban farming has attracted a large following of city dwellers committed to sustainability. Unfortunately, growing vegetables on rooftops in major cities probably isn't a climate-friendly alternative to conventional agriculture.

Podcast:

Join hosts Dr. Liza Dunn and GLP contributor Cameron English on episode 254 of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories:

* Analysis: Climate activists issue scare-warnings of impending starvation, but they ignore technology’s future role in scaling productivity

For more than 50 years, a radical strain of the environmental movement has predicted mass starvation as the global population outstrips the world's ability to produce enough food to feed billions of people. These predictions have failed spectacularly. Thanks to significant innovations, especially in crop breeding and chemistry, we're able to grow more food on less land today than anyone could have anticipated half a century ago. Why, then, do so many people continue to believe a hunger-induced doomsday is around the corner?

* Delusion and technology: How the internet exacerbates schizophrenia and other mental health problems

Widespread access to information through the internet is both an incredible blessing and sometimes a curse. One oft-overlooked example of the latter involves people battling serious psychological disorders such as schizophrenia. The condition is sometimes characterized by persistent belief in irrational ideas; for instance, the possibility that a patient is receiving coded messages through the radio. Some mental health experts fear that the free exchange of conspiratorial claims online could amplify the symptoms schizophrenics may experience, and they're trying to devise treatments for their patients that account for the effects of our digitally connected world.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

SIGN UP

* Urban farming sounds great in theory — but releases more CO2 than conventional agriculture. Here’s what needs to change

Cultivating a small farm on the rooftop of your apartment may seem like a sustainable way to grow food, but recent research suggests that urban agriculture is anything but earth friendly.

Neuralink has successfully implanted its "brain–computer interface" in a human patient. Elon Musk says the results so far are "promising." What does that mean exactly? CNN recently exaggerated the risk of COVID boosters, undermining efforts to quell groundless fears about the shots. Weight-loss drugs Ozempic and Wegovy have proven to be both effective and popular, but critics say these pharmaceuticals raise serious ethical concerns that must be addressed.

Podcast:

Join hosts Dr. Liza Dunn and GLP contributor Cameron English on episode 253 of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories:

* Elon Musk’s Neuralink implanted in a human, who is recovering well, billionaire tweets

Incendiary billionaire Elon Musk says his goal with Neuralink is to “achieve a symbiosis with artificial intelligence” using implantable brain–computer interfaces. In essence, the company aims to implant chips in people's brains so they can operate computers with their thoughts. Widespread use of this technology is a long way off, but Neuralink's coin-sized microchip, known as "Telepathy," could sooner improve the lives of quadriplegics, patients who experience paralysis in all four limbs. One individual has already received the implant, and Musk says the next step is a six-year clinical trial to determine if the product is a viable long-term treatment. 

* Another lesson from the news coverage of COVID: How poorly-written headlines can adversely impact the lives of readers

The media routinely misreport scientific facts to the public. But even when news stories are more or less correct, their headlines can still be misleading—a serious issue since so many people only read headlines. CNN published a case study late last year in a story reporting a rare risk associated with COVID and flu vaccines in the elderly. The article rightly reported that fewer than three people out of 100,000 experienced stroke after receiving both shots—an exceedingly low incidence rate. However, the story's title implied that the COVID booster significantly increased the risk of stroke for older patients. Moral of the story? Headline writers should read the article before composing its title.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

SIGN UP

* Viewpoint: Weight loss drug boom raises host of unaddressed ethical and scientific questions

Initially developed as treatments for type 2 diabetes, Ozempic and Wegovy are now widely used as effective interventions for obesity.

Can marijuana make your workout better? Probably not, according to a recent study. Four science publications produce a large swath of the anti-biotech, anti-chemical research and commentary we see in the headlines. Is Bill Gates trying to force everyone to eat insects instead of meat?

Podcast:

Video:



Join hosts Dr. Liza Dunn and GLP contributor Cameron English on episode 252 of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories:

* Can cannabis make your workout more productive?

Some people say using cannabis before they exercise improves their workout by reducing pain and improving their mood. But does the drug actually enhance the effects of exercise? A team of researchers from the University of Colorado, Boulder, put that claim to the test. They asked 42 recreational marijuana users to consume CBD or THC, chemicals naturally found in cannabis, and then report how they felt during 30 minutes of running on a treadmill. The results will probably disappoint weed aficionados.

* Viewpoint: Whitewash — How four obstructionist journals and their academic enablers are corrupting reporting on the science of chemicals and crop biotechnology

Many of the claims used to attack crop biotechnology and pesticides originate in one of four science publications. While these outlets have all the academic trappings of scholarly journals, they're actually predatory websites that will publish almost any study or opinion article if the authors are willing to pay. This pay-for-play arrangement, as its known, gives activists a platform to amplify their unscientific claims to an unsuspecting public. What can we do to quell this harmful impact?

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

SIGN UP

* Bill Gates and bug-eating: Conspiracy theory claims billionaire wants to replace cattle industry with insect protein. What’s the truth?

The internet is awash in claims that Bill Gates and other billionaires are conspiring to force average people to eat insects instead of meat. Some reporters and fact-checkers have pushed back on these allegations, labeling them conspiracy theories promoted by right-wing political pundits. Let's try to settle the dispute by looking at the evidence. Is mandatory bug eating Alex Jones-inspired fiction, or is there actually some truth to it?

Dr. Liza Dunn is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD

Cameron J.

Good hygiene is important, but too much of it might be contributing to chronic disease in developed countries. A data breach at 23andMe has geneticists and cybersecurity experts speculating about the dangers of amassing genetic data online. Are environmental activists colonizing Africa by trying to ban GM crops and synthetic pesticides from the continent?

Podcast:

Video:



Join hosts Dr. Liza Dunn and GLP contributor Cameron English on episode 251 of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories:

* ‘Overly sanitized’ environments? Unraveling why diseases tied to chronic inflammation are spiking in the developed world

Personal hygiene is a simple but essential tool in the never-ending battle to prevent the spread of disease. But as with everything, balance is key. Recent research suggests that wealthy societies are too clean: our zealotry to avoid germs has prevented our immune systems from learning how to fight potentially harmful microbes we're routinely exposed to. The result, according this hypothesis, is chronic, low-grade inflammation which may contribute to a whole host of illnesses, including heart disease and stroke.

* In wake of 23andMe DNA data breach, privacy concerns reemerge

Late last year, hackers breached some 14,000 23andMe accounts by acquiring user passwords. Although no information stored on the website was stolen, hackers ultimately gained access to the ancestry data of nearly seven million users, and related health records in a subset of cases. The scandal has raised important questions about how individuals can protect their DNA data, not just from would-be thieves but also corporations and governments that may legally access the information. For instance, how do you stop a health care provider from sharing your genetics with a pharmaceutical company for marketing purposes?

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

SIGN UP

* Viewpoint: Are corporations and Western countries shackling African agriculture to suit their interests, as anti-GMO groups claim? Or are the activists doing the shackling?

Activist groups have alleged for decades that agriculture companies "hook" farmers in developing countries on their expensive but ineffective biotech seeds and synthetic pesticides. This arrangement, they claim, gives Western companies control of food production in these nations, enslaving them to "Big Ag." But what if it's the other way around?

A decades-long campaign alleges that BPA, a chemical used to manufacture many plastic products, is dangerous. There is no evidence to support that allegation, and there never was. A large body of research shows that artificial sweeteners can help people lose weight, so why does the press continue to speculate about the harms of these "fake sugars"? It takes many years and costs hundreds of millions of dollars to discover and commercialize new pesticides. Why is the process so expensive and so time-consuming?

Podcast:

Video:



Join hosts Dr. Liza Dunn and GLP contributor Cameron English on episode 250 of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories:

* Anti-GMO activists take page out of anti-chemical and anti-BPA lobby, targeting the ‘black box’ of endocrine disruption

There are striking similarities between the campaigns against GM crops and BPA. That's because critics of agricultural biotechnology utilized the "playbook" of anti-BPA activists to attract media attention and public support for their cause. While there is zero credible evidence that either technology causes harm in real-world settings, a cohort of committed activists continues to insist that both should be banned. Why have these tactics been so effective, and how can scientists counter them today?

* Sucralose, aspartame, stevia: With the use of sugar substitutes continuing to rise, questions mount about their impact on diets

The evidence is clear at this point: artificial sweeteners promote weight loss without causing any serious side effects in the vast majority of cases. Nevertheless, mainstream news reports continue to speculate about the potential harms of so-called "fake sugars," alleging they could damage the gut microbiome and increase the risk of diabetes, stroke and coronary heart disease. Let's fact-check the fact-checkers and examine what the science really says about artificial sweeteners.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

SIGN UP

* If a viable herbicide was discovered this year, farmers couldn’t use it until at least 2035’: Why new weedkillers take so long to hit store shelves

On average, it takes several decades of research and $250 million to discover and commercialize a new weedkiller.

Sustainable agriculture advocates are split over the potential benefits of cell-based meat. Why are these longtime allies divided over this fledgling technology? Marijuana legalization has given rise to a growing industry dubbed "Big Weed" by critics. How worried should we be about the pot business and the intoxicating products it markets? The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recently published a hotly contested report on biotech crops and pesticides. Experts fear it could mislead parents about the safety of America's food supply.

Podcast:

Video:

Join hosts Dr. Liza Dunn and GLP contributor Cameron English on episode 249 of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories:

* Cell-based, lab grown meat is splitting food and agricultural sustainability communities. Here’s why

Cell-based meat, produced in a laboratory rather than on a farm, has been hailed as a massive step forward for earth-friendly food production, though not everybody is excited about the technology. Many scientists worry the industry won't be able to deliver on its sustainability marketing, owing to the high costs and energy consumption that come with its products. Advocates of cell-based meat say these criticism are overblown. Let's take a closer look at the evidence.

* ‘Big Weed’: How today’s cannabis landscape mirrors tobacco companies in the 1950s

Once a largely underground industry, marijuana has grown into a multi-billion-dollar business driven by retail and online dispensaries that market a broad array of products. Some public health activists say the marketing claims used to sell this recently legalized cannabis are misleading, and the products themselves (ranging from vape pens to gummies and even THC-laced beverages) pose a serious threat to children's health. This burgeoning industry should therefore be regulated like the tobacco industry, critics argue.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

SIGN UP

* Are children and pregnant women risking their health by eating “GMO” foods? The American Association of Pediatrics controversially says ‘yes’. The real question: Is the AAP endangering the food vulnerable?

The (American Academy of Pediatrics) AAP has a reputation for disseminating science-based guidance on vaccines, nutrition and other vitally important children's health topics. Unfortunately, the organization in recent years has joined the chorus of activist groups that spreads misinformation about crop biotechnology and pesticides. Its recent clinical report on those topics was blasted by experts for repeating cl...