The use of genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) in our food is controversial. I think most people would agree with that statement. However, the exact reasons for the controversy is a bit hazy to many people. Some would argue that GMOs are unsafe, not nutritious, or bad for the environment, but these statements are scientifically incorrect. In reality, the source of controversy is not scientific, but ethical and political. Freedom of choice, the right to know, the ethics of genetic engineering and the complex economics of global agriculture are what make GMOs controversial. Despite this, perfectly reasonable campaigns for labeling of GMOs become intertwined with pseudoscientific propaganda proclaiming GMOs to be toxic culprit for a list of modern day maladies that seems to have no end.
The task of educating others on the benefits and potential risks of GMO food is made extremely difficult by these inherent controversies of the subject. As scientists and science advocates wrestle with this difficult task, ads such as the Stonyfield Farms spot shown above only serve to confuse the issue further.
This ad cynically uses children to deliver a decidedly anti-GMO message, labeling GMOs “monstrous”, and bringing up the “fish tomato,” a commonly misunderstood target of anti-GMO crusaders. The text overlay urges the viewer to “avoid GMOs” and “join the organic revolution”.
This type of misleading ad only fuels distrust of GMOs, with vague suggestions that they are “bad.” Using children makes it even worse. It is irresponsible to teach children that GMOs are “monstrous.” The fish tomato reference is particularly biased. Not only were these tomatoes never sold or eaten by a single person, there are currently no commercially available GMO tomatoes at all, and Stonyfield does not make a tomato yogurt as far as we know.
To make matters worse, after several science advocates cried foul, Stonyfield doubled-down by calling their critics “trolls”. In their statement (read it here), they did back off the “GMOs are bad” message, saying, “We do not believe that eating GMOs has been proven harmful to your health.” However, they are back to demonizing GMOs a few sentences later:
“The majority of GMO crops used by farmers today require the use of toxic herbicides. The use of glyphosate, which has been categorized as a probable carcinogen by the World Health Organization, has increased nearly 15-fold since so-called “Roundup Ready,” genetically engineered glyphosate-tolerant crops were introduced in 1996.”
This is statement is highly misleading. GMO crops do not require the use of roundup any more than regular crops, though it is used often to control weeds in the vicinity of genetically-modified “round-up ready” crops. Also ,the World Health Organization (WHO) has not classified glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup) as a carcinogen. This was done by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IRAC). While IRAC is part of the WHO, the WHO disagrees, and classifies glyphosate as “unlikely to be a human carcinogen”. Worst of all, they label glyphosate as “toxic” which in this context has no meaning – toxic to what, and at what dose?
Stonyfield is also strongly implying that they do not feed their cows crops which were treated with pesticides. This is also false. Organic farming allows the use of certain pesticides, including the spraying of Bt toxin, which is the insecticide engineered into many GMO crops. It is likely that cows eating organic feed are exposed to higher levels of Bt pesticide than those that eat non-organic feed. That’s not to say that organic yogurt isn’t safe – it is, and so is non-organic yogurt.
The Stonyfield ad also includes a clear promotion of labeling GMO foods. The CEO and co-founder of Stonyfields, Gary Hirshberg, is also the chairman of Just Label It, a group which promotes the labeling of GMO foods. The labeling of GMO foods seems like a worthy conversation to have, but the promotion of a pro-labeling viewpoint by a company which will clearly benefit from such regulations, in an ad featuring children seems less like a sincere attempt to make a positive change in the world, and more like an example of corporate greed.
Standing up for science by countering misleading ads is not trolling, it’s science advocacy, and selling yogurt by exploiting people’s fears is shameful.
Welcome to Ask a Scientist, where we answer questions from our readers on a wide range of scientific topics. Got a scientific question? Drop us a line.
It seems like an accepted fact that a full moon makes kids “hyper” or people behave in a crazy way. Is there any truth to this, or is it just an old wives tale? – BH, Watertown, ME
Thanks for the question, BH! This is one of those “common knowledge” beliefs that seems to be everywhere. About 45% of people actually think this is true, which is in line with about 50% of Americans that think astrology is a science. This should make us all sad, because astrology is not a science and more people believe in astrology today than in 2004.
As for the full moon and behavior, this was a big enough question on peoples mind that several groups of scientists actually ran studies to see if there really was an effect on behavior. Universally, they found that there is none, though there was a very small decrease in the amount of sleep that children got during a full moon, which may be related to all that moonlight coming into their window, or to their parents repeatedly telling them that they were “hyper” because of the moon.
Exactly why people believe this is a bit of a mystery. Certainly, it has been around for a long time – this is where the words “lunacy” and “lunatic” comes from – from the Latin lunaticus, which referred to madness or epilepsy because people thought the moon caused these effects. It could be that this is just a relic of the past before electricity when nights with a bright moon in the sky would have allowed for much more activity than dark moonless nights, or maybe just kept people from getting a good night’s sleep.
Many people have anecdotally suggested that the full moon increases the rates of crimes, accidents, suicides, or trips to the emergency rooms. Scientists have studied these links as well, and there is no consistent effect of the phase of the moon on any of them. The same is true for animal behavior.
Others think that the behavioral effects might be related to the gravitational effect that causes tides, but this is not how tides work – they are driven not just by the gravitational pull of the moon, but also the large distances between different regions of the ocean. This is why the pond behind your house doesn’t have tides. The local gravity that a person experiences is influenced more by their distance from the center of the Earth and other large objects around them than the moon.
The bottom line is that the moon doesn’t effect behavior in any consistent way. If your kids are “hyper”, it’s not the moon, and it’s not sugar – maybe they are just kids having a good time?
In the early hours of tomorrow morning (January 31, 2018 ), a super blue blood moon will be visible in most of North America, Australia, Hawaii, and much of Asia. You may wonder how a blood moon could be blue, why it’s super, and how moon naming became so confusing in the first place. Fear not, UYBFS has the answers!
What is a super blue blood moon?
It is a combination of three different types of moons: super, blue, and blood.
A super moon describes a full Moon that is closer than normal to Earth. This happens because the Moon’s orbit is elliptical. The point of the Moon’s orbit that is closest to the Earth is called the perigee; and when the full moon occurs on the perigee we see a super moon. There are typically 3-4 super moons a year and they range in relative “size” depending on how close to the actual perigee the full moon occurs. A typical full super moon appears to be about 14% larger and 30% brighter than a normal moon.
A blue moon has nothing to do with color; instead, it occurs when there are two full moons in a single calendar month. In this case, the second full moon is called the blue moon. This is where the phrase “once in a blue moon” comes from, since it doesn’t happen all that often – typically occuring every 2-3 years.
A blood moon occurs during a lunar eclipse. A lunar eclipse happens when the Earth passes between the Sun and the Moon at night, preventing the Sun’s rays from hitting the Moon. Because the Earth’s atmosphere can bend light, some light still hits the Moon, but the light is scattered as it moves through the Earth’s atmosphere. As a result, the shorter wave lengths are reduced, causing the Moon to take on a reddish color; hence, the term “blood” moon. If the Earth had no atmosphere, the Moon would be almost completely black during a lunar eclipse. There are typically 2-5 lunar eclipses a year, but most are partial. A total lunar eclipse usually occurs every 2-3 years.
Therefore, a super blue blood moon is a moon that is very near its maximal perigee during a lunar eclipse (in Wednesday’s case, a total eclipse), while also being the second full moon of the month. These are incredibly rare. The last one occurred on March 31, 1866.
When and where can I see this awesome moon?
The best viewing will be from the northern west coast of North America. Here are the details for the major North American time zones:
Eastern Time Zone. Unfortunately, people on the East Coast will miss out on most of the eclipse (the blood), which will occur from approximately 6:48 am to 10:11 am EST. The greatest totality (which is the best viewing) will occur around 8:30 am EST. The problem is the Moon will set shortly after 7 am EST, so all you’ll be able to see is the very beginning of the eclipse before the Moon goes down. Also, depending on where you are, the Sun will rise around 7-7:30 am, ruining your view of the setting moon. It’s still worth seeing before sun rise and moon set, because even a setting super blue blood moon is cool.
Central Time Zone. Here, the eclipse will occur between 5:48 am and 9:11am, with the totality at 7:30 am. The Moon will set (and the Sun will rise) shortly after 7 am, so you will miss around half of the eclipse, but will be able to see more than those on the East Coast. Those in the extreme northwestern portion of the timezone (like Williston, ND) may be able to see the totality before the Moon slips below the horizon and the Sun comes up.
Mountain Time Zone. The eclipse will occur between 4:48 am and 8:11 am, with the totality at 6:30 am. The Moon set and Sun rise will set around 7-7:30 am for most of the major population centers in the area like Denver, Phoenix, and Salt Lake City, so you should be able to see most of the eclipse.
Pacific Time Zone. Those on the West Coast will be able to see the entire eclipse, but the bad news is you’ll have to get up early to see it. The eclipse will occur between 3:48 am and 7:11 am, with the totality around 5:30 am. By the time the Moon sets on the West Coast, the eclipse will be over.
There are a ton. Here’s a rundown.
New moon: This occurs when the Sun is behind the Moon and no light shines on the near (Earth-facing) side. You typically can’t see a new moon. Sometimes it is called a dark moon.
Crescent moon: When the first sliver of light from the Sun hits the Moon it causes a crescent shaped portion to light up. At the start of the Moon’s cycle, is referred to as a waxing crescent moon. A waning crescent moon occurs at the end of the lunar cycle, as the last of the Sun’s rays disappear.
Quarter moon: This occurs when half of the Moon is illuminated – the halfway point between the new and full moon in the lunar cycle. In the first half of the lunar cycle, as the Moon is “growing” in illuminated area, is referred to as a first quarter moon. In the second half of the lunar cycle, when the Moon is “shrinking,” is called a third quarter moon, also a last quarter moon.
Gibbous moon: Between the first quarter moon and the full moon is the waxing gibbous moon. In this case, the illuminated area of the moon is larger than a semi-circle, but smaller than a full moon. After the full moon, the waning gibbous moon leads into the third quarter moon.
Full moon: This is the opposite of the new moon – the entire face of the Moon is illuminated by the Sun’s rays.
Black moon: When there are two new moons in a single month, the second new moon is called a black moon. It’s the opposite of a blue moon, and occurs at a similar frequency.
Cheshire moon: When a crescent moon appears tilted, relative to the Earth, the “tips” of the crescent point upwards, making it look like a smile. The same smile worn by the Cheshire Cat in CS Lewis’ Alice in Wonderland. This is also called a wet moon.
In addition to these specific terms used to describe different points in the Moon’s cycle and specific astronomical events, each month has a name for its full moon. These are mostly traditional names which have been around for centuries; and, in some cases, they vary depending on your location.
The first moon of the year in January is generally called the wolf moon, and sometimes called the old moon. The February full moon is called the snow moon and the March moon is called the worm moon. April is the pink moon and May is the flower moon or the milk moon. Next comes the strawberry moon in June, the buck moon in July, and the sturgeon moon in August. September is generally the corn moon and October the hunter’s moon, but whichever is closest the the autumnal equinox (September 21st) is always called the harvest moon. So a full moon in early October would be a harvest hunter moon. November is the frost moon (or frosty moon), and can also be called the beaver moon. Finally, December is called the cold moon. Now that’s a lot of moons! Here’s a link to how some of these names came about.
Enjoy the super blue blood moon everyone!
Of all the achievements of evolution – the ability to extract oxygen from the air, to make sugar from light, to create specialized tissues and organs like bones, muscles, livers, and kidneys, and eyes that can see the world around us – the human brain is probably the crown jewel. The human brain devised all of the words you are reading right now, built the computers and the Internet we are using the share these ideas, and – oh by the way – is the only reason the human race has come to dominate the planet rather than just being easy meals for tigers and bears.
And yet…
People are eating “pods” of detergent because the internet told them it was a good idea.
Welcome to “chemicals and society”, where we highlight the current understanding of the biological effects and safety of some of the most common chemicals in today’s society.
Today’s Chemical: Fluoride
What is fluoride?
Fluoride is the anion of fluorine, the element with an atomic number of 9. An anion is a negatively charged particle (represented as F‾), and fluoride occurs naturally when it is released from fluorine-containing minerals like calcium fluoride. Fluorine is pretty common on earth – it’s the 13th most common element, and people are exposed to it mainly in their food and water. However, we are most familiar with fluoride from it’s use in toothpastes, mouthwashes, dental treatments, and as a drinking water additive.
What is fluoride used for?
Fluoride is used to prevent or delay the development of dental caries (commonly known as cavities). Cavities occur when bacteria build up on your teeth and acidify (lower the pH of) the enamel around them. This acid slowly eats away at your teeth. Luckily, your teeth can counter-act this demineralization to some degree, and that’s where fluoride comes in. It aids in the remineralization and in the process also makes teeth more resistant to future demineralization.
So how and why did people start putting fluoride in drinking water?
Fluoride occurs naturally in all water – seawater, lake water, river water, groundwater, literally all water. The actual levels of fluoride depends on the geology of the area, and it can vary widely. These different levels of fluoride in different areas of the world helped people figure out that fluoride could protect against cavities. They noticed that people living in areas with higher levels of fluoride had fewer cavities, and this eventually led to the idea that adding fluoride into water that didn’t have much in it might reduce cavities in those that drank it. The first city to fluoridate it’s drinking water was Grand Rapids, MI in 1945. Since then, much of the United States and many countries around the world have introduced fluoridation, including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, and Canada.
Welcome to Bad Science on the Internet! Here, we highlight some of the crazy and sometime dangerous stuff people post online, and then we give you the facts.
The bad science:
There are several companies selling something called “raw water”, which is unfiltered and untreated water.
What do they claim?
Some people claim that “raw” water is more healthy because it has minerals and probiotics and no chemicals in it. This is wrong. However, the website of one particular company, Live Water, is a goldmine of ridiculous pseudoscience tomfoolery. It’s clear that the health claims on this site weren’t written by a scientist, and honestly, I’m not even sure if they were written by an adult. Or at least not by an adult capable of using spellcheck! Let’s take a look at some of the silliest claims:
“Shocking but true- All other filtered and even bottled spring waters are sterilized with UV light, ozone gas, and a sub micron filter. This is similar to how most juice and dairy products are pasteurized for shelf stability. Unfortunately this sterilization destroys beneficial sources of minerals and probiotics.”
These processes don’t destroy minerals (though some can be filtered out using the submicron filters, which are filters with extremely small pores – too small for bacteria to pass through. Of course these processes destroy or remove bacterial (including potential probiotics), that’s the point. Many bacteria cause disease. Disease is bad.
“There are more nerve endings in our bellies than in our brains and there’s a constant battle between good and bad bacteria. The micro biome [sic] of our gut produces about 95% of the serotonin and 50% of the dopamine in our brains.”
I’m not sure what they mean by saying there are more nerve endings in “bellies” than in brains. I assume they are talking about pain sensing nerve endings? This is actually true- there are no pain sensors in the brain. However, gut bacteria do not produce 95% of the serotonin and 50% of the dopamine in our brains – they don’t produce significant quantities of either, and even if they did these chemicals can not be transported into the brain.
“The probiotics listed here are exclusive to our unsterilized water. There could be countless other benificial [sic] microbes present, scientists just haven’t discovered yet. They are imperative for optimal physical and mental health.”
If these “probiotics” are only found in Live Water’s well, then only people who have consumed this water have ever been exposed to them. So how do they know these bacteria are beneficial? As a general rule, it is not a good idea to eat previously unknown species of bacteria. This is dangerous. They admit that there could be all sorts of undiscovered bacteria in their water. They say this like it is a good thing, but it is not. How do they know these undiscovered bacteria aren’t dangerous? Finally, they tell us that their probiotics are “imperative” for optimal physical and mental health. I don’t think the author of this site knows what the word imperative means.
“Without these probiotics we’re not able to fully assimilate all the nutrients in our food. Some beneficial bacteria are also proven to have abilities to transform harmful bacteria. Here is a published medical report supporting evidence that raw spring water has vast healing abilities.”
The first sentence is absolutely false. The second statement is completely untrue. The report they reference is about a spring in Italy, not the spring they get their water from, and as they have already told us, the probiotics in their spring is different from all others.
“Major science has concluded that there is a body of water with a larger volume than all our oceans combined in the core of the earth. This is the earth’s way of cleansing water, and offering it back to us with a fresh new start.”
No scientist or health professional would ever use the phrase “major science., though we admit it might be a great name for a DJ or superhero. The reference to water in the Earth’s core suggests that they actually did a little research! However, they didn’t understand what they were reading. A recent report did hypothesize that there was more water in the earth’s mantle (different from the core) than in all the oceans, but this is not a “body” of water – the water is trapped inside of rocks. Because of this, this water is not part of the water cycle, and is not where the water in their spring is coming from.
“The Extensive Water Analysis shows super high levels of natural silica. Silica is essentially pure liquid crystals. Silicone holds information and energy in a unique way, thats [sic] why all our devices run off of them, hence the name silicone valley [sic]. Imagine how it would feel to upgrade your brain’s entire operating system to the best computer chips available.”
Wow. This is gibberish. You may know silica as sand (not whimsical “pure liquid crystals,” whatever that is). There is a lot of sand in this water, and they are trying to tell you that this is good for you. In all fairness, drinking a little sand isn’t bad for you, but it’s certainly not good for you. Then they switch to talking about “silicone” which they claim to magically “hold” energy and information. I assume they are referring to silicon (no “e”) microchips. Do you think drinking microchips will “upgrade your brain’s entire operating system”? You are correct – it will not. For the record, silicone is a synthetic polymer of silicon, carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen. It’s basically plastic, used in medical tubing and devices, lubricants, adhesives, and caulk. If there is silicone in their spring, no one should be drinking from it, and if Silicone Valley was really a place, we assume it would be greasy and sticky. (Kind of like the real-world silicon valley, but literal.)
“Since our water is alive and abundant with healthy microflora, it is imperative that we keep it from reaching sweltering conditions. Unlike sterile water, our water will turn green if exposed to excessive heat and sun light.”
Their water is turning green because things are growing in it. Would you drink green water you found in the woods? Of course not, that would be dangerous. Where do the bacteria (and maybe algae?) that are turning this water green come from? They were there all along, there just weren’t enough of them to see. Once they have a chance to multiply in the petri dish that is raw water, they turn the water green and cloudy. Gross.
“In it’s natural cycle water is infinitely chemically and energetically complex. Water goes down into the soil and becomes the perfect probiotic as it passes through microbes and micro-organisms in the humus. It picks up bio-available [sic] mono atomic [sic] elements and minerals that just can’t be replicated.”
More gibberish. Water is not complex – it’s one of the simpilest chemicals on earth. Water cannot become a “probiotic” – probiotics are living bacteria. A monoatomic element is a element that is stable as a single atom. There actually aren’t many of these elements out there- mostly noble gases like helium, neon, and argon. I doubt this is what the author was referring to – honestly I have no idea what they are trying to say here, and I doubt they do either.
“Blasting water with ozone changes it’s molecular structure. Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation uses synthetic ultraviolet light, different from our natural environment UV, to kill or inactivate micro-organisms by destroying nucleic acids and disrupting their DNA. A hard fact to swallow, but your drinking water might be considered a genetically modified organism. GMO seeds and GMO water don’t have the capacity to reproduce life. Perhaps this could influence human’s capacities also.”
Ozone does not change the structure of water. Water is water. Synthetic UV light is just UV light, no different from the UV light that comes from our sun. Both kill microorganisms at high enough doses – that’s the point of treating water with it. No reasonable person would call UV-treated water a GMO, because there is no “O” (organism). Because it’s just water. GMO seeds absolutely produce life – where do you think GMO plants come from? I think the last sentence is suggesting that UV-treated water can harm person’s ability to have children, which is completely and utterly false.
“Unfortunately almost all tap water also has the neurotoxin fluoride put into it…”
Fluoride is not a neurotoxin. It is perfectly safe at the levels used in tap water (and your toothpaste), and is the main reason that you can eat candy and other sugary foods without immediately losing all your teeth to cavities.
“‘Purified Water’ is typically devoid of all minerals, and actually strips your body’s minerals. The world health organization [sic] declared this a major health threat.”
It is difficult and expensive to pull all the minerals out of water. Tap and bottled water have plenty of minerals in them. Even if you got your hands on ultra-pure water and drank it, it would not strip the minerals out of your body. The WHO is not worried about this.
“We’ve chosen to use glass for our water because all plastic water bottles are toxic.”
Completely, totally, and troublingly false.
There’s more, but you get the point. Seriously, this may take the award for the most over-the-top collection of unfounded inaccurate pseudoscientific nonsense we have ever seen in a single website. They also claim to increase the oxygenation of your cells (not possible), to provide “super effective” detoxification (no), reverse the aging process (nope), and to activate the immune system, That last point might actually be true – more on this below.
Are they trying to sell you something?
Of course. 2.5 L will cost you 16 bucks. That’s almost 20 times more expensive than bottled water, and 6,000 times more expensive than tap water. Water is water. Don’t waste your money.
Is any of this true?
Absolutely none of it.
Is any of this dangerous?
Very much so. Getting a life-threatening water-born illness will definitely activate your immune system. Here is a list of some of the diseases you can catch by drinking unclean water:
Polio! SARS! Dysentery! You don’t want any of these diseases. Many of them can be fatal. We won’t get into which ones, because it doesn’t matter. What matters is THAT YOU SHOULD NEVER EVER DRINK UNTREATED WATER THIS IS NOT SAFE DON’T DO IT.
What’s the bottom line?
Don’t drink raw water. It’s not any more healthy than regular bottled or tap water, it’s expensive, and it is very, very dangerous. Water is water, unless it’s full of disease-causing microbes, in which case this might happen:
