Hands off our Thin Mints.
No need to toss your cookies. Girl Scout Cookies are both delicious AND safe.
For generations, it's been a cherished part of American life: the excited Girl Scouts at their cookie booths, the ritual of stashing Thin Mints in the freezer, and the eternal debate over whether Thin Mints taste better frozen or at room temperature. Forming cookie teams and debating which one is best (personally, I am #teamSamoas). These aren't just cookies – they're traditions woven into our communities, supporting leadership programs that have shaped millions of children.
A viral report wants to turn these beloved treats into something to fear. A December 2024 study from Moms Across America claims Girl Scout cookies contain "dangerous" levels of pesticides and heavy metals, sending parents into a panic and leaving cookie booths deserted. The allegations are serious – but do they hold up to scientific scrutiny? (Spoiler alert: no, they do not.)
Before you toss those Dosidos in the trash or skip your annual Tagalong stockpile, let's look at what the science actually tells us about these claims. After all, a tradition this sweet deserves to be questioned with facts, not fear…
Dissecting the Study’s Claims
The report, published jointly by Moms Across America, GMOScience, and unnamed "consumer groups," tested 25 samples of 13 different types of Girl Scout cookies from California, Iowa, and Louisiana. Their primary claims center on two main findings: the presence of glyphosate (an herbicide) and various heavy metals in the cookies sampled. What does this mean for you? Critical scientific context is missing from their analysis and we want to break this down for you below. Let’s discuss!
When evaluating food safety data, it's important to understand that laboratory testing only tells part of the story. While tests can detect the presence of substances like glyphosate, these results don't account for two critical factors: how cooking changes these compounds and how our bodies actually process them. For instance, baking temperatures can alter chemical structures, and our digestive system doesn't absorb everything we eat. Food safety standards take into account this complex reality - they're based on how substances actually interact with the human body in real-world conditions, not just their presence in raw ingredients. This is why we can't simply look at a laboratory detection of a compound and draw conclusions about safety without considering the full picture of how that compound is transformed during food preparation and digestion.
The Glyphosate Question
The study's most alarming claim is that glyphosate levels in the cookies are "334 times higher than harmful levels." Sounds scary. But this requires careful examination as the highest level of glyphosate detected was 111 parts per billion (ppb) in Thin Mints. For context, both the FDA and EPA consider levels between 100-400,000 ppb safe for food products depending on the type of food (e.g. fruit, vegetables, etc).
The lab testing showed considerable variation across cookie types (we converted ng/g to ppb):
Thin Mints: 99.41-111.07 ppb
Adventurefuls: 9.30-20.00 ppb
Trefoils: 12.26-40.34 ppb
Samoas/Caramel deLites: 14.21-41.37 ppb
These variations likely reflect different ingredients and recipes rather than safety concerns, and all fall well within regulatory limits.
The report bases its 'harmful levels' claim on statements from Dr. Don Huber, a retired plant pathologist whose assertions about glyphosate have been widely disputed in the scientific community. He claims levels as low as 0.1 ppb are harmful - but let's put this in context with what regulatory agencies actually consider safe.
First, let's look at what's in the cookies: The highest level found was 111 ppb in Thin Mints. To understand if this is actually concerning, we need to convert this into a daily intake amount that we can compare to safety standards. Here's how that works:
111 ppb means 111 micrograms of glyphosate per kilogram of cookies
Each Thin Mint cookie weighs approximately 11 grams (0.011 kg)
So each cookie contains about 1.22 micrograms (0.00122 mg) of glyphosate
Using the most conservative safety limit above (EFSA's 0.5 mg/kg/day)
For a 30 kg (66 lb) child, this means their daily limit would be 15 mg of glyphosate
To reach this limit, they would need to consume over 9,000 cookies in a single day
When we do this conversion, accounting for both the cookie size and how much glyphosate is present, we can compare it to these established safety limits:
EPA's Chronic Reference Dose: 1.75 mg/kg/day
European Food Safety Authority's Acceptable Daily Intake: 0.5 mg/kg/day
FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues ADI: 1 mg/kg/day
Here's what this means in practical terms: To reach even the most conservative of these safety limits, a child would need to consume over 9,000 cookies in a single day. More importantly, there is no scientifically validated evidence linking real-world glyphosate exposure from food at these levels to cancer, autism, miscarriages, or other health issues claimed in the report.
Heavy Metals: Context is King.
The study's second major claim concerns the presence of heavy metals - lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and aluminum. While true that these elements were detected, the report fails to provide crucial context about natural occurrences and safety thresholds.
The study's discussion of lead levels requires careful examination. Their highest reported level was 42.5 ppb, which they present alongside the common claim that there is "no safe level" of lead. This phrase, while powerful, requires important context. The concept originates from EPA water safety guidelines, not food safety standards, and its application to food can be misleading. Regulatory agencies recognize that truly "zero" levels are technically impossible to achieve in our food supply, which is why the FDA sets practical, science-based action levels rather than requiring absolute zero. For context, a 2006 FDA guidance document sets a recommended maximum lead level of 100 ppb in candy likely to be consumed frequently by small children -- more than twice what was found in these cookies. While this guidance is older, it remains one of the FDA's key reference points for lead in confectionery products. The FDA continues to update its guidance on lead levels through initiatives like Closer to Zero (described below), which focuses on reducing exposure in foods commonly eaten by babies and young children. The levels detected in Girl Scout cookies are similar to what you'd find in many everyday foods, including organic products and common vegetables grown in normal soil.
The complete laboratory analysis from New Jersey Laboratories, an FDA-registered and CGMP-compliant facility, revealed:
Lead: Levels ranged from 1.42 to 42.5 ppb, with most samples under 20 ppb
Arsenic: Levels ranged from 0.579 to 33.3 ppb
Mercury: Extremely low levels (0.07-3.26 ppb)
Cadmium: Levels ranged from 6.76 to 38.2 ppb
For context, these levels are similar to what you'd find in many everyday foods, including organic products and common vegetables grown in normal soil. These trace amounts reflect the natural presence of elements in our environment rather than contamination.
The Bigger Picture
Making sense of food safety findings requires understanding several crucial principles. Modern testing technology can detect incredibly minute quantities of substances – parts per billion or even trillion. However, the mere presence of a compound doesn't indicate risk. As Dr. Joe Schwarcz of McGill University points out, even coffee contains more than 1,000 compounds, including known carcinogens such as acrylamide and benzopyrene, yet coffee consumption is safe and even beneficial to health. This illustrates a fundamental principle of toxicology: the dose makes the poison.
When discussing food safety, especially regarding children's exposure to trace elements, context is crucial. The FDA's Closer to Zero initiative exemplifies how legitimate food safety concerns are addressed through rigorous science rather than fear. This comprehensive program systematically evaluates exposure sources, establishes achievable reduction targets based on scientific evidence, and works collaboratively with industry to implement practical solutions. Unlike alarmist reports, Closer to Zero recognizes an important reality of food production: some trace elements are unavoidable in our food supply. The initiative focuses on systematic reduction where possible while maintaining a safe, abundant food supply.
Independent Laboratory Verification
To evaluate these claims, we examined results from New Jersey Laboratories, an FDA-registered facility. While the laboratory used standardized testing methods, it's important to note some methodological considerations. For glyphosate testing, the laboratory used a common method involving cookies dissolved in milk. However, for metals testing, the results were not validated using what's considered the gold standard methodology. This limitation should be considered when interpreting the results.
The analysis still provides useful information about what's in these cookies, but with these methodological caveats in mind. The detected levels of both glyphosate and heavy metals fall within ranges commonly found in similar foods, though additional validation using gold-standard methods would strengthen these findings. This underscores a broader point about food safety testing: methodology matters, and results should always be interpreted within the context of how they were obtained.
Critical Methodological Gaps
The study's approach reveals fundamental flaws that go beyond basic omissions:
Limited information about which laboratory conducted the testing
No published lab reports or quality control procedures
No or limited details about testing methodology or detection limits
No comparative data with other similar foods
No peer review or independent laboratory verification
The study fails to place their findings within normal dietary exposure patterns. The trace elements they detected are commonly found in many foods, including organic produce, simply because these elements exist naturally in soil.
A Pattern of Manufactured Fear
This isn't the first time we've seen alarmist reports about trace contaminants in common foods. Just recently, another Moms Across America study claimed dangerous levels of chlormequat in Cheerios and oats, creating widespread panic. But when we look at the actual numbers, the fear-mongering becomes clear: to reach levels of concern, an adult would need to consume either 1,647 boxes of Cheerios in a single sitting (or 82 boxes daily for life), or 202 canisters of Quaker Oats at once (or 10 canisters daily). For children, even though the amounts are lower due to body weight, we're still talking about consuming 235 boxes of Cheerios or 21.7 canisters of oats in one sitting – amounts that are physically impossible to consume.
Similarly, when they tested Banza chickpea pasta, they reported the "highest amount of glyphosate in human food the lab has recorded" at 2,963 ppb. Yet this level falls well below the EPA's safety threshold of 5,000 ppb for chickpeas. To reach concerning levels, an adult would need to consume over 50 pounds of pasta daily.
As Dr. Joe Schwarcz of McGill University's Office for Science & Society points out, we are exposed to thousands of chemicals daily, and modern testing can detect incredibly minute quantities of substances.
The reality is that some degree of risk exists in everything - from the coffee we drink to the vegetables we grow. The key is understanding that the dose makes the poison and that our regulatory systems are designed with significant safety margins. While we should always strive to minimize unnecessary exposures, we must also recognize that zero risk is neither achievable nor necessary for food safety. As Dr. Schwarcz notes, the stress from trying to avoid every possible "toxin" is likely more detrimental to health than the trace exposures themselves.
Beyond the Headlines
The report makes additional claims about GMOs, seed oils, and farming practices that deserve scrutiny:
GMO Safety: Every major health and science body (FDA, WHO, EFSA, National Academy of Sciences) affirms the safety of GMO crops
Agricultural Practices: The claim about widespread glyphosate use as a desiccant on U.S. wheat is not accurate - it's not a standard practice for many of the mentioned crops
Organic Alternatives: Organic farming doesn't eliminate heavy metal exposure; in fact, organic crops sometimes show higher levels due to natural soil composition
Bottom Line
The evidence simply doesn't support the alarm raised by this report. When we examine the actual data, we find that both glyphosate and heavy metal levels fall well within established safety guidelines. To reach potentially harmful levels, a child would need to consume over 9,000 cookies in a single day – an astronomical amount that illustrates the margin of safety built into these products. While the study raises important questions about food safety, its methodological shortcomings and lack of context undermine its conclusions.
This isn't to suggest that Girl Scout cookies are health food – they're treats, meant to be enjoyed in moderation - not to mention they are only available from January to April each year. However, the available evidence shows they pose no special risk compared to other similar products. The real danger lies not in the cookie dough but in making health decisions based on incomplete information and fear rather than scientific evidence. The Girl Scouts' mission of building "courage, confidence, and character" deserves better than scientifically questionable attacks that serve only to frighten parents and discourage young entrepreneurs. So unless you're planning to devour thousands of Thin Mints in one sitting (in which case, please invite us over), you can feel confident continuing to support your local Girl Scouts and their mission.
Stay Curious,
Unbiased Science
P.S. I (Jess) wrote about this exact pattern of food fearmongering in The Hill last April. You know the drill - scary social media posts about "toxins," influencers racing through grocery store aisles warning about everyday foods, and the way fear spreads faster than facts. Sound familiar? This Girl Scout cookie panic follows the same playbook I described then: taking real scientific concepts (like chemical detection limits) and stripping them of crucial context to create unnecessary alarm. If you're interested in the bigger picture of how misinformation is making us fear our food, you can read more here.
Sources:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4756530/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams
https://www.fda.gov/media/164684/download
https://www.fda.gov/food/pesticides/questions-and-answers-glyphosate
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-09/documents/cadmium-compounds.pdf
https://www.fda.gov/media/135280/download#:~
#TeamSamoa for the win!
Yes, everything seems to be a trade-off. We need the oxygen to survive, but the air we breathe might be polluted with chemicals that are clearly bad for our health. Holding our breath won't solve the problem.
I'm concerned about the differences in established acceptable levels of glyphosate among the U.S., E.U., and W.H.O. scientists. It seems that if the "dose makes the poison" had an evidence-based cutoff point, there would be an agreement upon a single standard. Perhaps there's some political and financial influence going on here.