Whose One-Liner Is It Anyway?

The scientific method is vital to knowledge development. It has helped the human race to save lives and do and discover many amazing things. Science is a hot topic these days. Scientific findings like climate change have been embroiled in controversy and politics, leading to more exposure in the news media also television shows like Cosmos, and events like the March for Science have helped to popularize it.

Sadly, scientific literacy is being diluted down to soundbites and axioms by the pop science Skeptic movement. How often have you heard phrases like these?

The plural of anecdote is not data

Everything is a chemical

Correlation is not causation

The dose makes the poison

Science doesn't care what you believe

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence

These one-liners are designed to make the person delivering them sound sciencey and smart, but when someone is using a phrase like this it often belies a facile understanding of a complex issue.

Sigh. I feel your pain, kid.

This particular quote is often used to dismiss people's observations as having no value. While one anecdote alone isn't concrete proof of something, observational data is in fact very useful. The humorous example in the British Medical Journal of the article entitled Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials reminds us of this. That's even aside from the fact that this commonly used aphorism is being badly mis-quoted. The original version comes from a man named Raymond Wolfinger. In a 2003 email correspondence, Wolfinger relays the story behind his famed quote:

"I said 'The plural of anecdote is data' some time in the 1969-70 academic year while teaching a graduate seminar at Stanford. The occasion was a student's dismissal of a simple factual statement-by another student or me-as a mere anecdote. The quotation was my rejoinder."

Isn't it strangely ironic then that the Skeptic crowd would popularize the exact opposite of what the phrase was meant to convey?

Buy this sticker and you too, can pretend to be science literate.

This one generally gets whipped out when people use the term chemical to refer to a synthetic or manufactured substance, food additives or those products made by the chemical industry...what do they call those things? Oh yeah, chemicals.

Yes, all matter has a chemical structure. No, not all chemicals are bad. Shouting that 'everything is a chemical' in the middle of a conversation is about as helpful as shouting 'the sky is blue' in the middle of a conversation about airplanes. It might be correct, but it doesn't really serve to inform anyone.

The louder you shout it, the more scientific you sound.

Correlation alone is not proof of causation, this is true. But a correlation is also not a claim of proof either. And many times, what is mistaken as simply correlation is actually part of a collection of data that reinforces itself statistically. A correlation is a part of scientific investigation and it is pseudoscience to demand proof before an hypothesis can be fully tested. Imagine where we would be if every time a scientist noticed a correlation in some collected data they just waved their hand and said, 'No need to research this any further, correlation does not equal causation!'

Yes, because PCBs and asbestos are the same as potatoes and pears.

This one is a classic - literally. The axiom comes from the 16th century 'father of toxicology' Paracelsus. The original quote is, "All things are poison and nothing (is) without poison, only the dose makes that a thing is no poison." Does dose matter? Of course, but keep in mind Paracelsus lived before we knew about things like low dose effects and non-monotonic dose responses. Other factors influence toxicity too like individual susceptibility, timing, sequence, and accompanying exposures. The idea that low doses are always too low to be harmful betrays an ignorance of some of the most basic toxicological science. And as in the example above, it is used frequently by the chemical industry to confuse consumers and distract from the science surrounding their products that exhibit worrisome toxic effects.

A phrase so popularized, it even has its own Facebook page. It's all Oprah's fault, I'm sure. 

Science isn't a person, so no, of course it doesn't care what you believe. Don't be a fucking asshole.

Not to be confused with the poster on Mulder's office wall. 

While Sagan has done more for science literacy than he hasn't, we still could have done without his popularization of this one. First it lacks any real context. What defines an extraordinary claim? What would be accepted as extraordinary evidence?  Does this mean the evidence required to prove the existence of a new earth species is different or less than that to prove the existence of an alien life form? It doesn't seem logical that the required scientific evidence for proof of claims should be on some kind of arbitrary Skeptical Sliding Scale.

 Speaking of arbitrary and illogical...

This segues nicely into our last one-liner from Skeptic sourpuss, Chris Hitchens. "That which can be asserted with out evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." How the hell can anyone take this nihilistic shit seriously? You can't just make up your own rules as you go along and pretend it's somehow evidence-based to absolve yourself from presenting any evidence at all. This is the height of intellectual laziness, and we should pity any person who repeats this rubbish.

Science literacy is more than memorizing a series of catchy phrases, and skepticism is a discipline of thinking which cannot be accomplished by oversimplifying complex issues which is exactly what these expressions do. Make sure not to be seduced by this flashy style fake skepticism - there are no shortcuts here. Learning about science takes time and effort, but it's worth doing right.

EDCs In The Mac n Cheese

It's pretty likely you've seen the New York Times article about phthalates in boxed mac and cheese products.

The Chemicals in Your Mac and Cheese

It's spurred numerous other headlines, and a few knee jerk reactions (more on that later).  A consumer advocacy group called the Coalition for Safer Food Processing & Packaging, commissioned testing of various brands and types of mac and cheese products. This group is led by a woman whose son suffered from a type of genital abnormality that can be caused by phthalates. She states, "my son was born with a birth defect called hypospadias with chordee – one of the most common among babies in the United States. At just eight months old, my son needed a three-and-a-half-hour surgery to dismantle and reconstruct his penis."

The group's choice to test mac and cheese products is based on research that dairy products are a significant source of phthalate exposure for infants and women of reproductive age. This review concludes:

"DEHP in some meats, fats and dairy products were found at high concentrations (≥300 μg/kg) in food monitoring surveys and significantly contributed to exposure in epidemiological studies. Similarly, assessment of daily dietary DEHP intake resulted in dairy as the highest contributor to exposure. Exposure estimates based on actual diets for infants exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency’s reference level while estimates based on high meat and dairy consumption resulted in exposure above this limit for adolescents. Some of the ADI’s developed by the CPSC for reproductive outcomes were also exceeded. We provide guidance on future research in this area to further understand food as an important phthalate source and to help identify methods to reduce dietary phthalate exposures."

Many studies have shown that phthalate contamination is common throughout the food supply, diet is considered a significant exposure pathway, and levels can be higher in certain foods than others. Additional research on phthalates suggests that it may bioaccumulate in some instances. In 2008 the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the EPA ought to be assessing phthalate toxicity using a cumulative risk assessment approach - because people are exposed to multiple phthalates. Some of these combinations have been shown to be more toxic combined than with isolated exposures. These combinations can be as toxic as a high level at low levels, even.

We do have some restrictions in place due to the known risks of exposure to phthalates in the US and other countries in some consumer products. Wouldn't it be awfully prudent then, that we should take measures to remove this contamination from our food supply, as well? It seems that this is exactly what the Coalition for Safer Food Processing & Packaging is trying to do with their testing and petition. 

Of course, rather than look at this evidence and say 'hey, if we can prevent painful genital surgery for babies, maybe we should really take a closer look at this and see what we can do to cut exposures' the reaction from Skeptics is unfortunately, predictable. 

Jenny Splitter wants you to 'calm the fuck down'

Kevin Folta wants you to know you're a chemophobe who won't die from eating mac n cheese

When all else fails, invoke the spectre of the Food Babe. OoooooOOOOOoooooo!

I'm not going to break down every detail of these articles but the arguments I've seen have been pretty similar, and pretty flawed - this is an activist organization, the testing wasn't peer reviewed (even though it was done correctly) everything is a chemical, zomg chemophobez, Food Babe, 'dose makes the poison', etc. But anyone who has done even just some cursory reading and looked at the scientific literature isn't going to fall for the 'it's all fear mongering everything's fine' tropes. While I fully agree some of the headlines are alarmist, this still isn't an unfounded concern.

And it's amazing to me that anyone would think that the impetus for this campaign is some random hatred for Kraft, when it's much more likely that watching your eight month old baby boy endure painful genital surgery is the motivating factor here. Is it wrong to want to prevent this and other harmful effects for others? Even yet, this doesn't stop Folta from calling this group shills in his article: 'shouldn’t they be calling themselves shills of themselves?' And he makes a big blunder with the statement, 'According to the logic of the report, Kraft manufactures this popular product with the intention of causing birth defects. Certainly you can see why Kraft would want that, because it is M&C is an obvious choice for children stricken with reduced limbs and fused fingers.' GENITAL ABNORMALITIES KEVIN. If you don't know enough to even correctly name the health effects these chemicals are being linked to - please sit down and shut up. Also, no one has accused manufacturers of purposely adding phthalates to food. So many of these ridiculous arguments are crafted from straw.

The response from the Skeptics has not been surprising to me, or probably a lot of you reading but it is once again illustrative of how they stand in the way of moving forward with science and applying it in ways that can help people who are suffering. And so often take the position that benefits industry over one that benefits the public.

I for one am not panicking over the boxes of Annies in my pantry, but I did sign this petition several days ago when I first saw it. This isn't a mac and cheese issue, this is a food production issue, one of public health, and making sure that we eliminate these cumulative dietary exposures that may be putting people at risk of harm. That feels quite reasonable and science-based to me.

Median Lethal Dopes

Here's a trend I'd love to see die. I can't go five minutes without seeing some snotty know-it-all whipping out the same argument every time someone brings up a concern with a food additive, or other substance. Most commonly though, it comes up when talking about the world's most ubiquitous herbicide.

Note the condescending attitude of commenters, and lack of understanding of LD50 amounts. The higher the dose, the less acutely toxic something is, which two of these fail to grasp - but we'll get into that more while we take a look at the memes that often accompany these types of comments.

Exhibit A:

Here we have naturally occurring compounds from two edible plants used as an insecticide, being compared to the active ingredient in a synthetic herbicide. Both capsaicin and allicin have documented health benefits and theraputic uses, and can be easily washed off of food. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup, a systemic herbicide formulation that contains proprietary ingredients to help it work better. It cannot be washed off.  The LD50 (lethal dose 50 or median lethal dose) is used to indicate how acutely toxic a substance is. In other words, how much it would take to kill you. This has nothing to do with chronic exposure, nor does it apply to chemicals with a non-monotonic dose response. This false equivalence theme continues with...

Exhibit B:

To view larger see the original chart in PDF form.

Here is a chart comparing the acute toxicity of numerous substances - salt, caffeine, pharmaceutical drugs, and pesticides, to riboflavin/vitamin B2. It was created by a lobbying group called Washington Friends of Farms & Forests, with two officers who just so happen to be Bayer employees.

Speaking of Bayer employees...

Exhibit C:

This is one I have addressed before in a previous post, Diluting The Truth. This is from Cami Ryan, Social Sciences Lead at the former Monsanto Co. Sarah Schultz of Nurse Loves Farmer referenced this chart as proof that "...the dose makes the poison. This goes for anything—not just pesticides used in agriculture!" Again, for the MILLIONTH time - this is simply not true for all substances. Sigh.

And now for...

Exhibit D:

No, genius, because Starbucks serves coffee to drink, not herbicide.

Seriously.

Exhibit E:

Photo by Compound Interest

This one is probably the most accurate, (even if virtually no one is eating apple seeds on purpose) however, it's like one puzzle piece rather than a full picture. It's not wrong so much as it's incomplete, and misused by Skeptics. Indeed, just because a chemical is present does not mean that it is harmful in the amount present, but that does not mean low levels of chemicals cannot be harmful, as in the case with lead or endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). But Skeptics still try to fudge that picture up as much as possible - when they aren't just outright denying their existence or avoiding the topic. It should come as no surprise then that this particular graphic was commissioned by Sense About Science, known to champion chemical products while hiding ties to industry. It suits their agenda just fine, and Skeptics are more than happy to help them.

While writing this piece, I decided to search 'the dose makes the poison' on twitter, just to see if any other graphics came up. Lo and behold...

Exhibit F:

I typed the link on the photo into my browser and came up with a review article discussing the pros and cons of phytoestrogens (plant estrogens) on human health. 'Science Mom' Mommy PhD has badly misrepresented the information in this review in her graphic. For instance, the authors state regarding the difference in public attitudes toward synthetic EDCs and phytoestrogens: "Source, rather than evidence for effects likely contributes to this incongruous attitude." This does not jive with her quote at the bottom of the graphic. The words 'likely contributes' does not mean 'the foundation for' last I checked. The authors in the review go on to say "The 1999 approval by FDA of the health claim that daily consumption of soy is effective in reducing the risk of coronary artery disease has undoubtedly cemented the idea in the minds of many that soy is beneficial for human health." Basically, the general public's attitude toward phytoestrogens has a lot more to do with the health benefits being touted - not purely a naturalistic fallacy which she implies here. Not only that but the graphic is taking what the review said about phytoestrogens and applying it equally to synthetic EDCs making it seem as though the risk is the same from either one when that's not what was said at all. I'll tell you what's really incongruous - Mommy PhD's ahem, creative interpretation of her citation for this picture.

The fact remains, that acute toxicity, sub-lethal harm, chronic toxicity, dose, timing, sequence, vulnerable populations, and many other factors make this a complex discussion that can't be boiled down into a meme. Even so, I doubt that Skeptics will lay off this logical fallacy any time soon, as this is one of their core arguments. It would be in their own best interests though, as this gross simplification only serves to shine a giant spotlight on their scientific illiteracy in this matter.