Science Facts & Fallacies Cameron English

Obesity is a victim status not a serious medical condition, according to the fat-acceptance movement. What does the available evidence say about this increasingly popular refrain? Some environmental advocates claim that replacing meat with insect protein sources will help slow climate change. Can they convince enough of the population to eat bug-based foods? Let's examine 7 tips that will help you detect pseudoscience as you scroll through social media.

Podcast:





Join hosts Dr. Liza Dunn and GLP contributor Cameron English on episode 271 of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories:



* Larding the word ‘overweight’? Social activist post-modernists target ’obesity’ as unnecessarily judgmental



It's become fashionable in recent years to downplay or even deny the serious health harms caused by obesity. This campaign isn't grounded in sound scientific arguments, but an ideological assumption that treating excessive weight gain medically is meant to discriminate against overweight people. Let's take a critical look at the fat-acceptance movement and some of its key claims.



* Yuck factor: Insect protein foods would yield enormous climate change benefits — but acceptance remains a slow slog



Proponents of insect-based foods say they are poised to offer significant climate benefits as more people begin to eat cricket burgers and mealworm protein powder. There's a problem, however—nobody in the West wants to consume bugs. Social scientists are hard at work trying to devise solutions that will neutralize this "yuck factor," but they've yet to succeed. Will we ever overcome our trepidation about eating insects?

















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





















SIGN UP

























* Sniffing out pseudoscience is easier than you think — Here are 7 key ways



The internet is awash in nonsense, and fresh waves of it are published daily. This leaves the science-minded news consumers alone to separate facts from falsehoods as best as they can. The challenge is even more difficult because trusted sources of information--fact-checkers, journalists and even some scientists--routinely promote misinformation. There's no perfect solution to the problem, though experts have come up with an invaluable seven-point guide that can help the public identify pseudoscience when they see it.



Dr. Liza Dunn 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 a hre...

Popular science news is often shot through with the assumption that industry-funded research is inherently suspect because companies value profits above all else—including scientific integrity. No doubt there are examples from recent history of companies behaving badly--the tobacco industry being the most prominent and offensive example--but these instances are exceptions to a very important rule that generally keeps industry in line: misrepresenting the science behind your products opens you up to costly litigation, regulation and reputational damage that can destroy your company.

















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





















SIGN UP

























Indeed even when companies don't do anything wrong, they can still end up paying billions of dollars to settle legal disputes, as the recent crop of lawsuits brought against baby powder manufacturer Johnson & Johnson illustrated. Nevertheless, we shouldn't just take it on faith that industry always tells the truth about its products or the research it conducts. And that raises a crucial question: how should we approach industry science?



Join hosts Dr. Liza Dunn and GLP contributor Cameron English on episode 270 of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down this critical issue from their most recent Twitter Space.

Podcast:





Dr. Liza Dunn 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. Visit his website and follow him on X @camjenglish

A recent study and subsequent news coverage alleged that the weedkiller glyphosate causes reproductive damage in men. As usual, there is much more (or perhaps less) to the story.  Social media may not be so bad for teenagers after all, according to recent research. The all-meat "carnivore" diet is all the rage on social media today, but is it a healthful way to eat?

Podcast:





Join hosts Dr. Liza Dunn and GLP contributor Cameron English on episode 269 of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories:



* How the media portrayed a study: “High Levels of Glyphosate Found in Sperm” – What data actually show: Almost no chemical traces and no effect on sperm



If you're worried that glyphosate exposure will damage your sperm, take a deep breath. Recent alarmist headlines boosting a study linking the weedkiller to reproductive harm are completely baseless. Let's take a closer look at the study that stirred the controversy.



* Nuance needed: Teen social media use has positive influences as well



We often hear horror stories about the negative influence of social media on children. A team of researchers in Norway, while not denying the often-harmful effects of Instagram and TikTok, says that the situation is far more complex. It turns out that many teenagers struggling with a variety of challenges find support from communities of people grappling with the same problems on social media.  The simple takeaway: these websites and apps have positive and negative effects. Parents and other authority figures have an obligation to help teenagers in their care navigate the wild world of social media.

















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





















SIGN UP

























* Pros and cons of the ‘carnivore’ diet?



Meat can be part of a healthy, balanced diet; and the assertion that animal products cause cancer, diabetes or heart disease is based on shoddy science. A handful of health influencers and other celebrities have taken these conclusions to an extreme and endorsed the so-called "carnivore diet," an eating regimen made up entirely of meat. Advocates claim that cutting out all other food groups and nutrients helps them effortlessly lose weight and treat everything from depression to epilepsy. What does the evidence say about this radical diet?



Dr. Liza Dunn 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 a hr...

Once fiercely skeptical of "Big Ag," even adamantly progressive media outlets like Mother Jones are beginning to embrace the use of conventional farm technologies like synthetic pesticides and genetically engineered crops. What explains this dramatic opinion shift? A reporter for the Atlantic recently discovered, much to her surprise, that organic farmers don't take better care of their cows. What led her to that conclusion? Every culture seems to have some appreciation for music, but researchers are still uncertain about why humans would evolve to love music. What does the latest science tell us?

















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





















SIGN UP























Podcast:





Join hosts Dr. Liza Dunn and GLP contributor Cameron English on episode 268 of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories:



* Viewpoint: Mother Jones takes stand against American Academy of Pediatrics’s misguided case against GM crops and glyphosate



After years of criticizing the science behind crop biotechnology, progressive magazine Mother Jones has had a change of heart. The outlet recently joined the coalition of science publications and individual experts that has blasted the American Academy of Pediatrics for publishing a critically flawed--and some would say intentionally deceptive--guidance document attacking biotech crops and synthetic pesticides. Mother Jones' sudden acceptance of mainstream agricultural science appears to be part of a larger trend of formerly hostile environmental groups and media outlets embracing biotechnology as an important means of boosting food security and farming sustainability.



* Podcast: Do you buy organic milk because you believe organic farms treat their cows better? Here’s a reality check



If you think certified-organic products promote animal welfare, Atlantic contributor Annie Lowry has a revelation for you. Speaking to Slate recently, Lowry recounted her experience at a cattle auction where saw a "Certified Grass-Fed Organic" cow with its eye hanging out of its eye socket, a disconcerting symptom of ocular cancer. That observation led Lowry into a deeper investigation of animal welfare on organic farms and ultimately to the conclusion that organic farming doesn't protect animals from mistreatment or sickness—and in some cases may actually make those problems worse.















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