Is the American Academy of Pediatrics Endangering Public Health?
Is the American Academy of Pediatrics Endangering Public Health?
Their recent position on GMOs and food safety indicates yes
300 expert institutions and over 5500 studies demonstrate GMO crops are safe.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) adopted a policy statement that was authored by 3 pediatricians that is in direct conflict with the global consensus on the safety of GMO foods, a consensus which has been supported by extensive scientific evidence and numerous expert institutions worldwide. Even though we and others have reached out to them to offer support and guidance on appropriate analysis and representation of the data, there has been crickets.
As such, we and colleagues (Dr. Nicole Keller, a pediatrician and horrified member of AAP and Dr. Kevin Folta, molecular biologist) were compelled to write this piece for the Genetic Literacy Project.
Here are some of the key points:
For over three decades, GMO foods have been part of the global food supply. Extensive evidence from the United States, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, and many other countries suggests no health risks associated with these foods. Despite the consumption of hundreds of trillions of GMO meals, there has not been a single documented case of illness, either short or long term, linked to GMO foods. There is no evidence suggesting a link to genetic mutations, cancers, organ damage, or fertility problems from GMO consumption. This is supported by nearly 300 expert institutions and over 5500 studies, indicating robust scientific consensus.
The AAP has taken the opposite stance, undermining decades of data and suggesting GMO foods are linked to various health disorders, including cancer and developmental issues in children. This stance has been criticized for lacking scientific basis and expertise in crop biotechnology. The authors of the AAP article focus on the presence of glyphosate, a herbicide used with many GM crops, as a primary health concern. However, regulatory agencies worldwide have not found evidence supporting the claim that glyphosate residues in food supply pose a significant health risk.
AAP Continues to Parrot Misinformation about the Herbicide Glyphosate
The AAP article associates glyphosate with health hazards, despite a lack of solid evidence supporting this claim. Regulatory bodies worldwide, including 20 independent agencies, have found no persuasive evidence that glyphosate poses a significant risk to human health. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) did classify glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic," but this classification is based on potential rather than actual risk and includes substances like red meat and hot coffee. More concerning, AAP ignores all the data that evaluated actual RISK of glyphosate exposure, which demonstrate that there is no relationship between glyphosate (even for farmers or applicators) and negative health outcomes.
Twenty independent regulatory agencies around the world have conducted 24 total studies assessing glyphosate’s alleged dangers. Not one (that’s zero, as in ‘’0’), have found persuasive evidence that traces of the chemical in our food supply endanger children, pregnant women or anyone for that matter.
Why does the AAP ignore the evidence and spread false messaging that will undoubtedly lead people to consume fewer fruits and vegetables?
We can’t say for sure, but we have some ideas. One of the lead authors of the article, Philip Landrigan, has close ties to the Heartland Health Research Alliance (HHRA), an activist organization that has a long history of anti-GMO and conventional agriculture positions and is majority funded by large organic agriculture corporations.
However, that is ultimately not the biggest issue: the biggest issue is that this article that has been adopted as AAP policy is completely unsubstantiated by scientific data and will ultimately harm public health.
The AAP promotes fear-based messaging and disinformation about our foods.
Before we get into their claims and the issues about them, it is really important to understand that fresh produce items are not grown with glyphosate to begin with. Suggesting that organic produce is the way to avoid glyphosate is completely absurd to begin with. Glyphosate is used only on a subset of crops, that have been genetically engineered to tolerate the broad-spectrum herbicide. These crops are primarily soybeans, maize, and cotton - and much of those crops are used in animal feed, not in foods you’re going to eat, and certainly not fresh produce. This type of messaging completely misleads people beyond the fact that there is no evidence that residues (which are TRACE levels people, parts per trillion), are causing harm.
AAP's stance disregards the established consensus on GMO safety, misinterprets data on glyphosate levels, and relies on misleading and alarmist language.
There are many issues with their article, the most glaring:
Misinterpretations and Misrepresentations
The AAP's arguments involve several misinterpretations and misrepresentations:
Biologically Irrelevant Trace Levels: The AAP's focus on trace levels of glyphosate overlooks the fundamental principle in chemistry that 'the dose makes the poison.' Trace levels detected are far below any threshold of concern.
Fundamentally Misleading Information: The AAP's article builds arguments on selective and outdated evidence, ignoring the extensive body of research that supports the safety of GMOs.
Conflating Hazard and Risk: The AAP emphasizes a hazard-based approach rather than a risk-based approach, which considers actual exposure levels and their likelihood to cause harm.
Omission of Contradictory Literature: Key studies and reviews that do not support the AAP's narrative, such as those showing no link between glyphosate and lymphoma, are omitted.
Alarmist Language and Misleading Generalizations: The use of charged language and generalizations, such as the reference to Agent Orange, misleads and creates undue fear.
The AAP is eroding trust and causing harm
The misinformation promoted by AAP masquerading as fact influences public perception and will lead to unwarranted fear and avoidance of GMO foods. It also affects trust in scientific communication and challenges the credibility of the AAP. There's a concern that such misleading information can disproportionately impact food-insecure families and those in choice-limited communities.
To address the misinformation and restore its credibility, the AAP must reconsider its position on GMO foods, aligning with the broader scientific consensus. Furthermore, there's a need for a clear, evidence-based statement to counter the fear-based messaging that has been propagated. This is not just about GMOs; it's about ensuring that public health recommendations are always rooted in the best available scientific evidence.
The debate on GMO safety is more than a scientific discourse; it's a matter of public health and trust in science. While the AAP's recent claims have stirred controversy, they also highlight the importance of critical evaluation of scientific evidence and the responsibility of health organizations in disseminating accurate information. As consumers and healthcare providers, staying informed and discerning in interpreting such claims is crucial in making sound decisions about our health and the food we consume.
For more on this topic, watch our recent podcast episode:
Related: if you are a healthcare provider and want to have access to clinically-relevant content, please feel free to add your name and contact information to our ListServ here.
Additionally, if you are committed to science-based interventions, please read our newsletter on Congressional attempts to legitimize homeopathy and consider joining our call to action.
As always, please share our free newsletter with your friends and family. We will never waver in our commitment to providing critical analysis of scientific evidence!
Yours in science,
Andrea and Jess