US obesity rates are falling from a record high after steadily climbing since the 1960s, dropping to 37 percent this year from a peak of just under 40 percent in 2022. This downturn tightly correlates with a surge in the use of blockbuster weight-loss drugs like Ozempic and Zepbound—which have more than doubled since 2024, resulting in roughly 7.6 million fewer obese adults, according to Gallup. This positive trend underscores obesity's responsiveness to pharmacological intervention, bolstering arguments that it behaves as a treatable medical condition rather than mere lifestyle failure.



Critics aren't convinced, however. They contend that obesity is a behavioral abnormality and a risk factor for real diseases, not a discrete pathology. Writing in the journal Nature in 2014, Dr. David Katz summed up this perspective. "Our bodies, physiologies and genes are the same as they ever were," he argued. "What has changed while obesity has gone from rare to pandemic is not within, but all around us." In short, an abundant food supply and marked decrease in physical labor over recent decades have turned a normal physiological response—storing excess calories for later use—into a public health threat. Humans are wired for an environment characterized by energy scarcity, where intense exertion is required to gather the calories necessary for survival, a dynamic that persisted well into the 20th century.



Proponents of the disease model of obesity, including the American Medical Association (AMA), which classified obesity as a disease in 2013, emphasize its complex etiology: genetic predispositions, hormonal dysregulation (e.g., leptin resistance) and socioeconomic barriers contribute to energy imbalance, akin to hypertension or diabetes. Advocates also say recognizing obesity as a disease destigmatizes patients, enhances insurance reimbursement for treatments and spurs research funding—vital as obesity drives comorbidities like cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes.



So, is obesity a disease or a harmful lifestyle choice? Are those two definitions mutually exclusive? Join Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as he examines the obesity-disease hypothesis.







Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish

RFK, Jr.'s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) coalition has built its platform on the concept of health freedom, a belief that individuals have a right to make their own health care decisions without coercion from the public health establishment. "This growing, nonpartisan health freedom movement is pushing for bold, sweeping changes to a system that many believe is long overdue for reform," says Josh Axe, a prominent alternative medicine advocate and MAHA supporter. "Whether you realize it or not, if you’ve ever questioned a prescription, worried about food safety, or felt unheard in a medical office, you’re already part of it."



Americans across the political spectrum embrace this rights-based rhetoric, even people who are generally hostile to Kennedy's agenda; for instance, scientists who advocate for universal health care often frame access to medicine as a human right. Nevertheless, critics of the MAHA campaign argue that health freedom is merely a smokescreen masking an insidious agenda. Kennedy and his compatriots cloak their policy goals in the language of liberty, the argument goes, but they have no problem imposing their preferences on Americans when they can get away with it.



For example, the FDA under Kennedy's leadership recently changed federal recommendations for COVID-19 vaccines, a move that could limit access to the shots even if people want them and could benefit from the protection they provide. And earlier in his career, RFK, Jr. was caught on camera advocating for the imprisonment of prominent businessmen he deemed proponents of climate change misinformation. The man clearly has an authoritarian streak, in other words.










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










SIGN UP














These observations invite some important questions: is health freedom a legitimate concept that has been abused by cynical MAHA activists? Is the very idea of "health freedom" a fiction? Join Dr. Liza Lockwood and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they scrutinize "health freedom."







Dr. Liza Lockwood 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. Follow him on X @camjenglish

The science community faces an existential crisis as thousands of studies are retracted and dozens of peer-reviewed journals are forced to close their doors after publishing fraudulent and low-quality research. “Fake studies have flooded the publishers of top scientific journals,” The Wall Street Journal reported in 2024, “leading to thousands of retractions and millions of dollars in lost revenue.” These developments force academic scientists into an awkward position, defending their profession against accusations of incompetence and corruption while combating the flood of fraudulent research undermining their credibility. This onslaught of bad science wastes billions of taxpayer dollars and jeopardizes public health. In some instances, fraudulent research may be responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths as fake studies inform guidelines physicians rely on when treating their patients.



This crisis is a serious threat to scientific progress. Dubious results fuel skepticism of mainstream medicine, legitimizing radicals like RFK, Jr. who claim academic publishing is corrupt to its core—merely a vehicle for boosting Big Pharma's profits. Addressing the problem requires systemic changes: punishing bad behavior in the academy, promoting open data sharing, enforcing rigorous peer review and incentivizing replication studies. Journals and funding agencies must prioritize negative results, and institutions should reward transparency over sensationalism.










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










SIGN UP














Without these reforms, the scientific method’s foundation—reliable, verifiable evidence—could crumble, slowing progress and risking additional harmful policies or applications. By fostering a culture of integrity, science can regain credibility and advance more efficiently, ensuring discoveries are robust and trustworthy for future generations.



But the question remains: will the science community consistently implement these critical solutions? Join Dr. Liza Lockwood and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they tackle the replication crisis with GLP contributor Dr. Kevin Folta.







Kevin M. Folta is a professor in the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida and host of the Talking Biotech podcast. Follow Professor Folta on Twitter @kevinfolta



Dr. Liza Lockwood 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 Show more...