Testing everything under every scenario is impossible. Although as consumers we’d love to see as much testing as possible, funding and timing mean that testing has to be limited. Consequently, scientists have to prioritize the types of tests and the amount of testing a substance or drug undergoes. This prioritization is based on many different criteria such as the substance’s mechanism of action (i.e the way the drug is known to work), data gathered from laboratory and animal testing, as well as plausibility.
Tess is concerned that the measles vaccine is not sufficiently tested in scenarios where there’s no plausible mechanism for harm. The best way to overcome our concerns for insufficient testing is to look at existing data. Often times, we can be surprised by just how much information and testing is out there! Here are some resources:
In the last comic, Episode 6: Trace A. Mounts Attacks!, Trace terrorizes households by warning about trace amounts of hazards without putting them into context.
Trace A. Mounts fails to understand the difference between a risk and a hazard. Many items are hazards but not risks because we aren’t exposed to them either frequently enough or at concentrations high enough to cause harm. Briefly, asteroids are hazards because they can be deadly, but they are low risk because we seldom encounter them: we usually go about our days without worrying about “death by asteroid”. Formaldehyde is also a hazard: we know that it can be harmful. However, we do not consider pears to be risky despite the fact that they have formaldehyde because the amount in the pears is so low that it is considered to be safe.
Trace A. Mounts considers many items around us to be extremely dangerous. Of course, our aim should always be to create products that are safer for us and our environment, but this does not mean that the items we have are harmful. To read more, please explore the following posts from SciMoms and other sources:
Trace A. Mounts fails to understand the difference between a risk and a hazard. Many items are hazards but not risks because we aren’t exposed to them either frequently enough or at concentrations high enough to pose a risk. Briefly, asteroids are hazards because they can be deadly, but they aren’t a risk because we seldom encounter them: we usually go about our days without worrying about “death by asteroid”. Formaldehyde is also a hazard: we know that it can be harmful. However, we do not consider pears to be risky despite the fact that they have formaldehyde because the amount in the pears is so low that it is considered to be safe. In the next episode, Episode 7: Trace A. Mounts Meets the Risk Revelation Ray, Alison helps put trace amounts of hazards into context.
Trace A. Mounts considers many items around us to be extremely dangerous. Of course, our aim should always be to create products that are safer for us and our environment, but this does not mean that the items we have are harmful. To read more, please explore the following posts from SciMoms and other sources:
As we mentioned in the last episode, “jargon is often used when companies make false health claims. Scientific words that are unfamiliar can be overwhelming and digging into the validity of health claims can be very difficult, particularly when many of them are made at once”.
Additionally, pseudoscience is characterized by weak or little evidence. When you come across a questionable article or claim, pick a single point and try to find evidence supporting the claim. Don’t move forward until you have an answer, otherwise, you may get caught and overwhelmed in the web of jargon.
Which claims should you question first? Here’s a list of suggestions from our last episode:
Beware of health claims that are not verified by the FDA (for example, Sue claims that only organic water can hydrate).
Be wary of overstated claims if the studies cited were conducted exclusively in animals.
Watch out if the studies cited have not been reproduced in other labs.
Be skeptical of health claims that sound too good to be true, because they usually are.
Jargon and buzzwords are often used when companies make false or exaggerated health claims. Scientific words that are unfamiliar can be overwhelming. Digging into the validity of health claims can be very difficult, particularly when many of them are made at once.
To ensure that articles making health claims are factual:
Beware of health claims that are not verified by the FDA (for example, Sue claims that only organic water can hydrate).
Ensure that the studies cited were not conducted exclusively in animals.
Ensure that the studies cited have been reproduced in other labs.
Be skeptical of health claims that sound too good to be true, because they usually are.
What are some indicators that a company or person is not using science and evidence to sell their product?
Beware of:
Products with health claims that are not FDA approved
Products that claim to be a panacea to treat a wide variety of different symptoms (for example, a product will claim to help prevent cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and help with weight loss)
Products whose claims sound too good to be true (for example, Nutella’s claim that it is a healthy breakfast)
Products that demonize the competition as harmful and dangerous (for example, Sue claims that the only water safe enough to drink is her product)
Company or website that uses fear to “educate” its customers about an issue, whose solution it sells
This article by Alison in SEEN Magazine provides tips for identifying reliable health information.
GMO, or Genetically Modified Organism, is a term usually used to describe crops that have had one or more genes added to them. These genes can come from related or distant species: for example, a genetically modified white potato could have a gene from a wild potato added to its DNA. It can also have a gene from a bacteria added to its genome. These genes give the crop new characteristics or traits.
Scientists give crops new traits to help farmers or to add features that consumers want. An example of a crop engineered to help farmers is the Rainbow papaya, which was modified to be resistant to a virus that impacts the growth of the fruit. Traits such as pest resistance decrease the amount of pesticides that farmers use. An example of a crop that was modified to satisfy consumers is the Arctic Apple, which was engineered with a gene from the apple itself so that it does not bruise or brown. This reduces food waste from farm to table.
There are only a handful of genetically modified crops on the market. A list of crops is available here and a more detailed database of engineered crops, their regulatory approval status globally is available here. Each country has a different process for the approval and testing of GMOs. In the United States, this process takes years while the FDA, USDA, and other entities ensure that the crops pose no greater risk than other crops. An excellent article outlining the nuances of this process are outlined here.
Despite the persistent myth, there are no crops with fish genes in them currently on the market. All organisms on the planet have DNA and due to evolution, the genes that make up our DNA can be quite similar. In fact, 60% of our genes are similar to those in fruit flies. Consequently, adding a gene from a distant species does not make this process immediately risky or harmful, and this process does occur naturally in crops.
To learn more about GMOs, see this Q&A put together by the Royal Society in the UK.
Click 
