ScienceAlert’s Decline into Yellow Journalism
No, your chewing gum won't harm you ... but poor science reporting will
Imagine a scientific study that shows hundreds of microplastics in every bite of chewing gum, carcinogens lurking in your mouth, with none of these synthetic chemical ingredients listed in the ingredients. This would be quite a serious discovery and something demanding policy action.
If only it were true.
ScienceAlert recently published a report by Daniel Lawler, written for AFP (Agence France-Presse) that raised the alarm on microplastics in chewing gum (although I cannot find the original AFP report). While the authors of the study were claiming there was no significant risk, ScienceAlert still printed a series of alarmist headlines, with images of horrible gum stuck on sidewalks and shoes. As for the microplastics, they used a stock photo of quite large microplastic shards (I suppose some consumers must like their chewing gum crunchy).
This is yellow journalism at its worst, trying to capture dramatic fear headlines and activist outrage that even the authors of the study surely must regret. People who don’t read or have little scientific knowledge will fall for ScienceAlert’s emotional headlines. But a simple survey of a few of the quotes from the scientists would show how this is a non-story, that chewing gum has insignificant levels of microplastics, if any, and it is not a human health risk.
But the science magazine’s headlines tell a different story.
Some examples:
The article leads with the claim: “Chewing gum releases hundreds of tiny plastic pieces straight into people's mouths” and only much later in the article does the author admit that such levels are statistically insignificant when compared to another activist claim that “a litre (34 fluid ounces) of water in a plastic bottle contained an average of 240,000 microplastics”.
Another scientist, not involved in the study, was quoted as saying that at such levels, the chemicals would pass straight through the body with no impact. In other words, you would need to read to the end of the article to learn that the findings were meaningless.
The ScienceAlert article though leads with several paragraphs about the risks of microplastics in general. This is not at all related to the research at hand and is only included early in the article to scare the reader. See image.
The article claims that researchers tested five brands of synthetic gum and five of natural gum, which use plant-based polymers such as tree sap. "It was surprising that we found microplastics were abundant in both". Another scientist, not involved in the study, assumes that the microplastics likely entered via other sources in the lab but the researchers would not want to admit such sloppy lab practices.
The methodology was weak, limited and intrinsically flawed. “XXXX XXXX, a PhD student at UCLA, chewed seven pieces each of 10 brands of gum, before the researchers then ran a chemical analysis on her saliva.” (A side note on basic research ethics: subjects and their professions should always be anonymized.) This quote reveals a wickedly poor methodology. They used a single student, with no controls or information on how the gum was packaged or handled.
The study has also not yet been published or peer reviewed. So it was worthless and someone in ScienceAlert should have seen that and pulled the publication immediately. But they were attracted to the microplastic-cancer-consumer product fear funnel.
The Only News Here is About Research Integrity?
The story was meaningless and ridiculous. We understand that ScienceAlert was publishing it to get attention with what could be a controversial subject. But this raises a further question on UCLA authors’ research integrity.
The research methodology was poorly designed with, with one subject and no controls.
The findings were statistically insignificant.
The samples were likely contaminated from other sources.
It was released to the media prior to peer review or publication.
They ignored personal data protection standards and published the name of the research subject (whom we can only assume was also involved in the research as she made a comment to the journalist).
Why would the scientists release this unpublished information as credible research? I suspect they had funding to do this study and needed to publish some findings. They knew their research was flawed and would likely not be published (unless they could first create some emotional media and activist outrage). Their only argument, that they had proven yet another means for microplastics to enter the body, cannot be justified with the mediocre methodology and findings.
The Decline in Science Reporting
The scientists have to pay the rent and media attention always has some value. But what about the integrity questions of ScienceAlert amplifying this nonsense? Why didn’t someone on the editorial team give this any critical assessment? After the silliness, why didn’t the editors take the article down? I can only assume this reprint was fully automated and never edited. Welcome to the world of AI-driven science reporting.
This ScienceAlert article is a clear indication of the downward spiral that scientific publishing finds itself in. Quality research is getting drowned out by garbage science peddling fear and uncertainty. This is part of the crisis of expertise that is enabling activists and rogue scientists to spread campaigns, polluting the public narrative and undermining innovative consumer products. Today it has become even more serious as ScienceAlert is now playing the role of a useful idiot for grifters like RFK Jr and Dr Oz who will certainly amplify such conspiracy theories at the highest levels to introduce a ban on chewing gum.
The final word should go to the lead scientist of the microplastic chewing gum study, UCLA’s Sanjay Mohanty (whose lab studies the effect of anthropogenic and climate stressors on the biogeochemical processes in subsurface soil … so … not quite human health exposures). The ScienceAlert article quoted him as saying:
“I don't want to alarm people. ... There is no evidence directly showing that microplastics are harmful to human health.”
If only the ScienceAlert editors had read that quote they had themselves published.