Science Facts & Fallacies

RFK, Jr.'s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) coalition has built its platform on the concept of health freedom, a belief that individuals have a right to make their own health care decisions without coercion from the public health establishment. "This growing, nonpartisan health freedom movement is pushing for bold, sweeping changes to a system that many believe is long overdue for reform," says Josh Axe, a prominent alternative medicine advocate and MAHA supporter. "Whether you realize it or not, if you’ve ever questioned a prescription, worried about food safety, or felt unheard in a medical office, you’re already part of it." Americans across the political spectrum embrace this rights-based rhetoric, even people who are generally hostile to Kennedy's agenda; for instance, scientists who advocate for universal health care often frame access to medicine as a human right. Nevertheless, critics of the MAHA campaign argue that health freedom is merely a smokescreen masking an insidious agenda. Kennedy and his compatriots cloak their policy goals in the language of liberty, the argument goes, but they have no problem imposing their preferences on Americans when they can get away with it. For example, the FDA under Kennedy's leadership recently changed federal recommendations for COVID-19 vaccines, a move that could limit access to the shots even if people want them and could benefit from the protection they provide. And earlier in his career, RFK, Jr. was caught on camera advocating for the imprisonment of prominent businessmen he deemed proponents of climate change misinformation. The man clearly has an authoritarian streak, in other words. Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter. SIGN UP These observations invite some important questions: is health freedom a legitimate concept that has been abused by cynical MAHA activists? Is the very idea of "health freedom" a fiction? Join Dr. Liza Lockwood and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they scrutinize "health freedom." Dr. Liza Lockwood is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish

The science community faces an existential crisis as thousands of studies are retracted and dozens of peer-reviewed journals are forced to close their doors after publishing fraudulent and low-quality research. “Fake studies have flooded the publishers of top scientific journals,” The Wall Street Journal reported in 2024, “leading to thousands of retractions and millions of dollars in lost revenue.” These developments force academic scientists into an awkward position, defending their profession against accusations of incompetence and corruption while combating the flood of fraudulent research undermining their credibility. This onslaught of bad science wastes billions of taxpayer dollars and jeopardizes public health. In some instances, fraudulent research may be responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths as fake studies inform guidelines physicians rely on when treating their patients. This crisis is a serious threat to scientific progress. Dubious results fuel skepticism of mainstream medicine, legitimizing radicals like RFK, Jr. who claim academic publishing is corrupt to its core—merely a vehicle for boosting Big Pharma's profits. Addressing the problem requires systemic changes: punishing bad behavior in the academy, promoting open data sharing, enforcing rigorous peer review and incentivizing replication studies. Journals and funding agencies must prioritize negative results, and institutions should reward transparency over sensationalism. Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter. SIGN UP Without these reforms, the scientific method’s foundation—reliable, verifiable evidence—could crumble, slowing progress and risking additional harmful policies or applications. By fostering a culture of integrity, science can regain credibility and advance more efficiently, ensuring discoveries are robust and trustworthy for future generations. But the question remains: will the science community consistently implement these critical solutions? Join Dr. Liza Lockwood and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they tackle the replication crisis with GLP contributor Dr. Kevin Folta. Kevin M. Folta is a professor in the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida and host of the Talking Biotech podcast. Follow Professor Folta on Twitter @kevinfolta Dr. Liza Lockwood is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish

The story most people know about America's opioid epidemic, a public health crisis claiming over 1 million lives since 1999, goes like this: in the late 1990s, pharmaceutical companies aggressively marketed prescription painkillers as safe and non-addictive. The introduction of Purdue Pharma's OxyContin in 1995, approved by the FDA, marked a turning point. Promoted for chronic pain management, it led to a surge in prescriptions, with opioid sales quadrupling between 1999 and 2010. The truth is very different from this narrative. While Purdue Pharma did indeed oversell OxyContin and many people used the drug recreationally, these were almost always individuals with long histories of substance abuse. The vast majority of patients prescribed OxyContin for legitimate medical purposes did not misuse it. Moreover, by 2001, this widely maligned pain reliever accounted for less than 10 percent of nonmedical opioid use. In reality, there is a large body of research showing that OxyContin poses minimal addiction risk when used as prescribed by a physician. Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter. SIGN UP By the early 2010s, as addiction rates soared and prescription opioids became harder to obtain due to regulatory crackdowns, many users transitioned to cheaper, illicit alternatives like heroin. This second wave, peaking around 2010–2013, saw heroin overdose deaths triple. The crisis evolved further with the third wave starting in 2013, dominated by synthetic opioids such as fentanyl, often laced into other drugs by cartels. Fentanyl-related deaths skyrocketed, accounting for over 70% of opioid fatalities by 2022. Fortunately, this trend has slowed in recent years. Overlooked amid all this controversy are patients afflicted by painful chronic diseases, who have been denied access to prescription opioids in the name of fighting drug abuse. This severe response to the overdose epidemic often forces sick people with no history of substance abuse to drink alcohol daily or seek out illicit opioids for pain relief—or just commit suicide. Is there a way to resolve this tragic state of affairs without actively encouraging recreational drug use? Join Dr. Liza Lockwood and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they break down America's overdose epidemic with patient advocate Bev Schechtman Bev Schechtman is vice president of the Doctor-Patient Forum, a non-partisan, community-based organization that works to support pain patients and their physicians with access to lifesaving pain relief. Follow her on X @ibdgirl76. Dr. Liza Lockwood is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish

Late last month, Daily Caller published a bombshell report claiming that Johnson & Johnson, the former manufacturer of Tylenol (acetaminophen), quietly conceded that its pain reliever might be linked to autism. "SCOOP: Tylenol Maker Privately Admitted Evidence Was Getting ‘Heavy’ For Autism Risk In 2018," the story's headline announced. "The pharmaceutical company behind Tylenol privately acknowledged the likelihood of an association between its drug in pregnancy and neurodevelopmental disorders like autism," reporter Emily Kopp alleged, citing "company documents" she obtained from the law firm Keller Postman LLC, which is suing the maker of Tylenol. The story exploded on social media, garnering millions of views and thousands of retweets—including from federal agencies like Health and Human Services, now led by Robert F Kennedy, Jr. There was a critical problem, however: the internal company documents explicitly refuted a causal association between Tylenol use and autism. Johnson & Johnson's experts, tasked with evaluating the possible link between acetaminophen and the neurodevelopmental disorder, panned the low-quality evidence cited by critics. "There is no proven link between the two [our emphasis]," a 2012 email from one company scientist plainly stated. A second email in the same chain of messages explained why: "Review of the cases identified confounders or lack of information which preclude a causal assessment." Kopp excluded these clear refutations of the Tylenol-autism link from her story, though she implied that the company's tone had shifted by 2018, quoting one J&J scientist as saying “The weight of the evidence is starting to feel heavy to me." But an internal evidence review prepared for company executives the same year confirmed that its experts remained skeptical of the association. Evaluating all the evidence available at the time, they noted that studies linking Tylenol to autism were hampered by confounding, meaning another factor beyond acetaminophen exposure was the likely cause of autism. "There are limitations of the individual studies that make it challenging to conduct a meta-analysis," the presentation concluded. Meta-analysis is a method of combining and analyzing data from multiple studies on the same topic to reach a more conclusive answer than any one study could provide. The individual studies linking acetaminophen and autism were so limited—so hampered by confounding—they couldn't be combined for a meta-analysis, J&J scientists found. The most recent evidence review, published in August 2025, purporting to show a link between Tylenol and autism didn't include a meta-analysis for the same reason. "[W]e did not conduct [a meta-analysis] due to significant heterogeneity across studies in exposure assessment..." the authors wrote. In sum, the advocates of the acetaminophen-autism association were forced to concede publicly the same point J&J's scientists made privately. What do we make of all this? The best evidence to date indicates that the risk of autism is heavily influenced by a variety of genetic factors. For example, multiple studies have shown that pregnant women with neurodevelopmental disorders experience more pain during pregnancy and thus tend to use more Tylenol, explaining the association between the drug and subsequent autism diagnosis in their children. "So let’s be clear," GLP contributor Dr. Andrea Love observed in a recent story, "autism is overwhelmingly genetic, sometimes influenced by biological and developmental factors like maternal fever, but not acetaminophen." Bottom line: The Daily Caller report is fundamentally flawed. It selectively cited private communications and scientific research to support a predetermined conclusion. There is no evidence showing that Tylenol causes autism. Join Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as he examines Daily Caller's allegation in more detail. Cameron J.

Kevin Folta and Cameron English break down four of the latest headlines from the world of genetics and biotech.

Bad research can put people's lives at risk, so addressing problems with peer review is essential.

On this episode of Biotech Facts and Fallacies, Tim Lu talks to Cameron English about Senti's progress toward "outsmarting complex diseases with more intelligent medicines."

Looking at the massive selection of goods available in US grocery stores, most consumers likely don't realize just how hard it is to sustainably produce an abundant supply of food. Arguably the biggest challenge facing farmers and scientists in their effort to feed a growing global population is plant disease, which destroys 15 percent of all food grown globally, a loss of roughly $220 billion annually, according to the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Most of us know very little about plant pathogens, but as the American Society for Agronomy points out, we're all familiar with how they work and at least one example of how deadly they can be: Just like human beings, plants get sick. Microorganisms such as fungi, oomycetes, bacteria, viruses and nematodes (tiny worm like organisms) can infect their plant hosts, with deadly consequences .... Diseases that affect our global food supply .... can have tremendous consequences for food security. One of the most famous examples in history is the Irish Potato Famine. A disease called Late Blight devastated potato crops in the 19th century. This resulted in mass starvation and emigration from Ireland. Diana Horvath The problem today is so severe that in 2014 alone, for example, farmers spent $14 billion dollars on pesticides to protect their crops, but with only partial success. Diseases like wheat stem rust can cut crop yields by as much as 70 percent, jeopardizing the food security of people all around the world, and others such as citrus canker threaten to grind Florida's $9 billion citrus industry to a halt. While these numbers are startling, the problem is solvable. That's where scientists like Diana Horvath come in. A trained molecular biologist, Horvath heads up the 2Blades foundation, an Illinois-based research nonprofit working with leading scientists to develop crops that can withstand the withering effects of dozens of plant diseases. The ultimate goal, 2Blades says, is to get "healthier plants into the hands of farmers all over the world." On this episode of Biotech Facts and Fallacies, Horvath joins GLP's Cameron English to discuss the global food security threat we face and the important work 2Blades is doing to neutralize it. Diana Horvath is president and director of the 2Blades Foundation. She received her Ph.D. in biochemistry and molecular biology from Northwestern University. Visit 2Blades online and follow them on Twitter @2Blades Cameron J. English is the GLP’s senior agricultural genetics and special projects editor. He is a science writer and podcast host. Follow him on Twitter @camjenglish

Here's a question for you: what if there were dangerous toxins that could make their way into your food, but they don’t actually pose a risk because our food system keeps the threat in check? Would you want to know more about this? I’m talking here about a real thing—something that could be seriously scary, but which fortunately isn’t among the problems we face, at least in the “rich world.” The toxic chemicals I’m talking about are called mycotoxins. These are natural chemicals that can form in various foods when those foods are infected with certain fungi or molds. This sort of infection often happens because a crop is damaged by insects, but there are some cases where the infection can happen without those sorts of injuries. So, how are you and I protected from this dangerous side of nature? Well, as is often the case with pest-related challenges, what really helps is to have a diverse set of tactics—what we might call “Food Safety Ninja Strategies.” Maize cob colonized by Aspergillus species, aflatoxin in Senegal. Photo by Joseph Atehnkeng/IITA. In many cases the key “bad guys” are insects, because the damage they cause through their feeding opens the door to infection by the mycotoxin-producing molds. Particularly with corn and tree nuts, there are caterpillars who chomp away at the developing ears of corn or the hulls of the nuts.  A similar thing can happen with fruits like apples when insect feeding leads to growth of a Penicillium mold that makes a different mycotoxin called patulin. Patulin isn’t as scary as aflatoxin, but still something to be avoided if possible. In an earlier POPagriculture episode titled “There’s More Than One Way to Kill a Bug,” I talked about how farmers deal with insects using insecticides, biocontrol agents, natural enemies of the bugs, and with chemicals that repel, disorient, or otherwise confuse the bugs. Those are all good options for our “food-supply-protecting ninjas.” In the case of field corn, the genetically engineered hybrids that produce the safe and selective Bt protein suffer much less insect damage, and thus the risk from mycotoxins, like aflatoxin, or another nasty one called Fumonisin, is drastically reduced. Full show transcript available here. Steve Savage is a plant pathologist and senior contributor to the GLP. Follow him on Twitter @grapedoc. The Pop Agriculture podcast is available for listening or subscription on iTunes and Google Podcasts.

While the GMO controversy rages, a handful of companies are taking another innovative approach to crop protection.

Are you a fan of the long-term sci-fi comedy Doctor Who? It's the bizarre but entertaining story of an extraterrestrial being called “The Doctor” who keeps showing up to protect the human race as well as other races on other planets. This hero can do that because he has the ability to travel through space and time in a ship called the Tardis. From the outside it looks like a classic, blue, British Police Phone Box, but fancifully, the Tardis is bigger on the inside. Imagine if the Daleks of Dr. Who successfully completed their mission to exterminate all humans! This running feature is one of many pop culture examples of battles between humans and some type of alien invader. On this episode of Biotech Facts and Fallacies, Steve discusses the extermination of some alien invaders who were threatening the grape industries of California. Image: Jim G, via Wikimedia Commons) The drama for our story began in the summer of 2009 in a famous, premium wine grape-growing region called the Napa Valley. One of the growers there spotted a caterpillar munching away on some of his grapes. Now there are several kinds of moths that can be pests of California grapes, particularly during their larval stage as caterpillars. But the grower noticed that this one didn’t look like those familiar types. It turned out that was a new kind of moth to California—an alien invader! Ok, not a space alien, but scary from the perspective of grape farmers. It was called the European Grapevine Moth or “EVGM.” As its name implies it has been a pest on that continent for a long time. That name doesn’t sound scary enough for our story so lets use the scientific name, Lobesia botrana. Now of course there wasn’t an extraterrestrial “Doctor” to lead this campaign, but even Dr. Who drafts a team of regular humans to help defeat the aliens. In this case the team comprised representatives of the grower communities, university experts and government employees from the relevant state and federal departments. They held an emergency meeting and decided that they wanted to see if they could come up with a way to not only stop the spread of the pest, but if at all possible to completely eradicate it from California. Eradicate! Doesn’t sound quite as harsh as “exterminate!” but it’s essentially the same idea. Full show transcript available here. Steve Savage is a plant pathologist and senior contributor to the GLP. Follow him on Twitter @grapedoc. The Pop Agriculture podcast is available for listening or subscription on iTunes and Google Podcasts.

Despite the endless stream of dramatic headlines and warnings from environmental activist groups, an overwhelming number of studies indicate that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Bayer's herbicide Roundup, probably doesn't cause cancer. This body of consensus science includes hundreds of independent papers and dozens of safety assessments conducted by 15 regulatory agencies worldwide. So comprehensive is this research, according to cancer epidemiologist Geoffrey Kabat, scientists are running out of ways to confirm the relative safety of glyphosate. But several experiments conducted in recent years have challenged the mainstream view on Roundup safety, indicating that the controversial weed killer may increase your risk for certain cancers. A study published in July 2019 offers a typical example. The researchers exposed mutant lab mice to glyphosate for up to 72 weeks and reported at the end of their study: These data support glyphosate as an environmental risk factor for [multiple myeloma] MM and potentially [non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma] NHL and implicate a mechanism underlying the B cell-specificity of glyphosate-induced carcinogenesis observed epidemiologically. The research was promoted by anti-GMO activists, including Gary Ruskin, co-founder of U.S. Right to Know. The organic industry-funded outfit has played a pivotal role in the ongoing glyphosate-cancer lawsuits against Bayer, supplying evidence to the plaintiffs and providing favorable PR for every case that goes to trial. There was nothing inherently wrong with the research, but Ruskin failed to mention dozens of serious limitations in the study. For example, mice were given massive doses of glyphosate—enough weed killer to treat 31 square meters of farmland—for a year and a half. This is, needless to say, far more herbicide than any animal or human is actually exposed to in the real world. The study authors acknowledged this in their paper, noting that "an individual would unlikely consume such an excessive dose of glyphosate ...." They nonetheless concluded that "the [acceptable daily intake] for glyphosate should be reassessed ...." But feeding mice enormous amounts of weed killer was just one of several important issues with this research that need to be addressed. University of Florida plant geneticist Kevin Folta joins GLP editor Cameron English to take a detailed look at the study. What did the researchers really find, and how should we interpret their results? Folta's analysis underscores the importance of approaching news reports and scientific research skeptically, carefully examining the evidence before jumping to conclusions. Kevin M. Folta is a professor in the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida. Follow professor Folta on Twitter @kevinfolta and email your questions to kfolta@ufl.edu Cameron J. English is the GLP’s senior agricultural genetics and special projects editor. He co-hosts the Biotech Facts and Fallacies podcast. Follow him on Twitter @camjenglish

There's nothing quite like a hangover. After a few too many drinks and a night of restless sleep, you wake up with an upset stomach, pounding headache, sore muscles and the desire to do nothing but sit on your couch and sip Gatorade. Most of us are very familiar with the next-day effects of consuming alcohol, but genetic engineering may have finally made them more tolerable. Zack Abbott California-based biotech startup ZBiotics has developed a probiotic it claims can help your body more efficiently metabolize alcohol, possibly preventing hangovers—or at least making them a little less miserable. The shot-size drink contains genetically engineered bacteria that break down acetaldehyde, the chemical byproduct of alcohol metabolism responsible for the unpleasant side effects. ZBiotics says its product is FDA-compliant and has submitted a safety study to the Journal of Toxicology, which is available online for free. The probiotic is an interesting development in its own right, but company founder and microbiologist Zack Abbott says ZBiotics wants to do more than prevent hangovers. Genetic engineering gets a bad rap, Abbott argues, and his startup wants to offer products that ease the public's deep-seated but inconsistent fear of biotechnology by solving practical problems. Although the public remains highly skeptical of GMO and gene-edited crops and animals, research shows that consumer concern about genetic engineering in medicine is almost nonexistent. The benefits of biotech cancer treatments, insulin and vaccines are obvious to people who need them and outweigh whatever concerns people may have about the technology that made those treatments possible. Therein lies an opportunity to upend the ferocious battle over GMOs that's raged for almost 30 years, Abbott says: Genetic engineering has given us incredible things .... But this technology remains difficult to understand outside of big corporations and university labs. The result? People have come to question the good this technology can do for the world. ‍We’re out to change that. Genetic engineering is our means to create products that improve your life. On this episode of Biotech Facts and Fallacies, Abbott joins GLP editor Cameron English to discuss the science behind his company's first product and his goal to elevate the conversation about genetic engineering. Zack Abbott is the founder and CEO of ZBiotics. He holds a PhD in microbiology and immunology from the University of Michigan. Follow ZBiotics on Twitter @ZBioticsCompany Cameron J. English is the GLP’s senior agricultural genetics and special projects editor. He co-hosts the Biotech Facts and Fallacies podcast. Follow him on Twitter @camjenglish

When Europeans began to colonize North America 400 plus years ago, they brought along the crops they knew how to grow so they could have food – things like wheat, barley, apples, and grapes. Some did well in the New World, but others didn’t. Wheat did great in the Northern Colonies, but poorly in the South because of a fungal “rust” disease favored by the wetter, warmer weather there. The winters in the North were too cold for one of Europe's favorite crops – grapes. When the settlers tried to grow grapes in the South they would grow for a while, but then mysteriously die after a few years. These unexplained grape deaths were due to an alarming new disease that arose in the 1800s, and it took a long time for scientists to track down the culprit. For decades, the “murderer” couldn’t be identified. Who among us doesn’t love a good mystery? A whiff of danger and a few threads of misdirection leaves one wondering how the detectives will crack the case! On this episode of Biotech Facts and Fallacies, plant pathologist Steve Savage discusses a murder mystery that nearly went cold: the case of a disease afflicting grapes in the 19th century, and the research conducted by key “detectives” who finally brought the disease under control. Full show transcript available here. Steve Savage is a plant pathologist and senior contributor to the GLP. Follow him on Twitter @grapedoc. The Pop Agriculture podcast is available for listening or subscription on iTunes and Google Podcasts.

"Natural food" advocates have blasted Impossible and Beyond as unhealthy. Let's look at their arguments.

How would taxpayers feel about funding organic food activism masquerading as children's health research?

The high efficiency of modern agriculture has a downside: most consumers don't know the first thing about farming.

Medical devices powered by artificial intelligence could help overweight people customize diets based on their biomarkers.

We're often told raising animals for food takes a devastating toll on the environment, consuming ever more natural resources, hastening climate change and turning increasing amounts of land around the world into desert. According to the filmmakers behind the blockbuster documentary Cowspiracy: Many organizations are studying humanity’s effect on soil degradation, erosion, and eventual desertification but not willing to emphasize the final connection of dots to animal agriculture. According to the UNCCD (United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification), nearly 20 million acres of arable land is lost each year Among the primary causes, the filmmakers claim, are "deforestation due to cultivation of crops and pasture" and overgrazing from livestock (“eating away grasses and eroding topsoil with hooves”). This is a compelling, even horrifying, story. But according to food and agriculture analysts at the Breakthrough Institute, the situation may not be so bleak. As animal agriculture grows more intensive, the amount of land it requires shrinks—as does its overall environmental impact. In a June report titled Achieving Peak Pasture: Shrinking Pasture's Footprint by Spreading the Livestock Revolution, Breakthrough scholars Dan Rejto, Linus Blomqvist and James McNamara lay out their counterintuitive argument: In the past 20 years .... something remarkable has occurred, something that few predicted: global pasture has begun to decline. According to data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, there are 140 million fewer hectares of pasture today than there were in 2000, an area roughly the size of Peru. Dan Rejto Going back to the 1700s, global pasture expansion for animal agriculture yielded "severe environmental consequences," Rejto explains on this episode of Biotech Facts and Fallacies. But a combination of better feed, optimized breeds, and improved animal health has dramatically boosted meat and milk production in the developed world, ushering in a "livestock revolution." While this is a development worth celebrating, we still have a ways to go, Rejto says. The key to advancing this downward trend in land use is to spread these sustainable practices to the developing world, especially sub-Saharan Africa. Rejto also addresses important developments including CRISPR gene editing, the plant-based GMO Impossible burger and social movements to cut animal consumption and food waste. Dan Blaustein-Rejto is a Senior Food and Agriculture Analyst at Breakthrough. Follow him on Twitter @danrejto Cameron J. English is the GLP’s senior agricultural genetics and special projects editor. He co-hosts the Biotech Facts and Fallacies podcast. Follow him on Twitter @camjenglish