Trust in science dies when health professionals spread disinformation and refuse to correct mistakes
The American Academy of Pediatrics refuses to acknowledge their statement on GMOs and food safety is in direct conflict with scientific consensus.
The American Academy of Pediatrics is legitimizing pseudoscience that is undermining food safety, genetic technologies, and critical agricultural practices.
In December 2023, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) adopted a policy position based on a Clinical Report that was authored by 3 pediatricians. While this clinical report claims to be a comprehensive analysis of the body of data on these topics, the reality is, it is nothing more than an opinion piece.
Worse, it is in direct conflict with the global consensus on the safety of GMO foods, a consensus that has been supported by dozens of expert institutions and agencies worldwide and decades of extensive scientific evidence.
The AAP is not interested in correcting misinformation that will harm public health.
As someone who has been using genetic technologies and tools in research for over a decade and a half, I was appropriately horrified that the same anti-science talking points from activist groups like the Environmental Working Group (EWG) (which I discussed here, here, here, and here) were adopted as fact by an organization that represents pediatricians.
I had worked with AAP previously to debunk COVID-19 vaccine myths, so I had hoped that they similarly understood the importance in combating nutrition and food disinformation.
Dr. Nicole Keller (a pediatrician, farmer, and horrified member of AAP), and Dr. Kevin Folta (horticulture molecular biologist), and I each reached out to our contacts within AAP, including the editor and authors of that article, to provide dozens of references, underscore the importance of correct misinformation and the harms of legitimized fear-based claims, and to offer support and guidance on appropriate analysis and representation of the data.
We each got dismissive waves of the hand.
So, the three of us took it a step further.
We wrote an article and submitted it to Pediatrics, the same journal the Clinical Report appeared in. If AAP is committed to presenting data to their readership, then they should critically review this piece and consider publication to that same audience, right?
In it, we detailed the evidence to support safety and benefit of GMO crops (which I prefer to refer to as GE) and the dozens of safety and regulatory conclusions from scientific experts globally.
More importantly, we discussed the importance of correcting mistakes by scientists and health professionals.
We underscored that science is under attack across ideologies and beliefs. Trust in science has been declining over the last several years for the first time in decades. Professional member organizations like the AAP must be a trusted conduit of information for their members (pediatricians) who guide patients and families.
We emphasized their policy causes unfounded fears about the safety and nutrition of our foods and farming practices, but also undermines the AAP. If their policy statements on food and nutrition conflict with the body of evidence on this topic, how will they be viewed as a credible source of other important health information?
We talked about the harms of publishing disinformation as fact can have, using the irreparable harm caused by Andrew Wakefield and the Lancet in 1998: damage that is still causing harm and leading to preventable illness and death today as a parallel.
And we offered our assistance, again, in correcting the record and providing evidence-based information to their readers, pediatricians, and the public.
After sitting on our submission for over 2 months, AAP rejected our article for publication. The reviewer comments were…well, I’ll let you see for yourself.
We’ve got an appeal to authority from reviewer 2 (note: liaisons refer to individual people who are employed by these entities, not the position of these organizations):
“…I have previously been an author of a number of Clinical Reports. My prior experience… is that they take many months to prepare through multiple revisions, and are developed by a large number of experts in the specific area (members of the specific Committee, Council, or Section AND liaisons from other groups internal to, as well as outside of, the specific group responsible for the writing). ..their liaisons, who were from the NIH, the FDA, the CDC, the USDA, the EPA, NCI, and the Canadian Paediatric Society, as well as several others…”
A pediatrician who possibly didn’t actually read our paper (?) and doesn’t understand the harms of nutrition and crop misinformation on families and farmers:
“It is not entirely clear what the authors of this Perspective would like retracted…
…the specific recommendations are based on shared decision making and eliciting family values and preferences. Given the low potential risk, this seems appropriate and fits with other AAP policy statements.”
A reviewer who doesn’t think the same exact journal the misinformation was originally published in is the appropriate audience for the correction:
“This manuscript details concerns about information in an AAP Clinical Report about genetically modified foods. The concerns have been … generalized to extend to the larger area of science misinformation and the role journals and scientists can and should play in verifying and critically evaluating information. While the topic is important it is difficult to see Pediatric Perspectives as an appropriate venue for airing scientific concerns related to an AAP Clinical Report.”
Although I will give credit to reviewer 3, who did say that these are valid points that should be discussed:
“Specifically, the Abrams manuscript equates GMO foods with glyphosate use and the potential for harm from this herbicide. The authors of this submission focus on what they interpret to be the lack of ill effects of glyphosate unlike the Abrams publication.
The authors raise interesting questions about an area that appears to be a
minefield of controversy and the readers of Pediatrics might find their position
and a response from Abrams et al. informative.”
So let’s address some of these comments. First: is there actually “low potential risk” of adopting lies as fact? Absolutely not.
The AAP is eroding trust and causing harm to our society.
Kevin, Nicole, and myself discussed the implications of this in a recent Talking Biotech podcast episode, which you should listen to here.
But this post from Kevin really underscores the central issue:
Refusal to correct disinformation, whether an honest mistake or intentional, erodes trust in science.
The irony is the AAP published a recent provider piece where they discussed the importance of updating guidance with new data. How can they publicly tell that to their members yet refuse to do that as an organization?
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. Misleading information about the safety and nutrition of foods will disproportionately impact food-insecure families and those in choice-limited communities.
Why does the AAP ignore the evidence and spread false messaging that will undoubtedly lead people to consume fewer fruits and vegetables?
I can’t say for sure, but there are 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.
And guess what? It’s been happening for decades already, and is continuing. The AAP’s legitimization will only fuel attacks on biotechnology and scientific innovation.
As an example, two weeks ago The Conversation published an article written by a Sociology professor at University of Guelph, Erin Nelson. In it, she makes wholly unsubstantiated claims about the herbicide glyphosate, calling it “highly toxic to humans and ecosystems” and calling for a global ban.
A sociology professor has no expertise in chemistry, genetic engineering, agriculture, cancer biology or toxicology, but she goes in with a lot of confidence. She uses a lawsuit against Monsanto as “proof” glyphosate poses health risks to humans, makes false statements about it being “banned” in a majority of countries (it isn’t), and suggests the reason it isn’t is because of political influence.
Interesting take, considering the entities that push anti-biotech and pro-organic farming messaging like the EWG have multi-million dollar lobbying arms.
Erin omits the fact that glyphosate is a critical tool to produce many different crop types across Canada and globally, and genetically engineered crops are essential to ensure we have a stable and sustainable food supply for the billions of people on this planet. This is only one of the the countless attempts to foment fear.
But what does the ACTUAL science say?
300 expert institutions and over 5,500 studies demonstrate GMO crops are safe.
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 meals that contain food ingredients derived from GMO crops, 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.
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.
These include:
Health Canada, The European Commission, The US Environmental Protection Agency, the WHO and FAO Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), the US National Toxicology Program, the European Food Safety Authority, the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES), the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), the Swiss Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, the Food Safety Commission of Japan, the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA), the New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority, the Korean Rural Development Administration, the WHO’s Drinking Water Guidelines, the WHO’s International Programme on Chemical Safety, AND the US National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Department of Health and Human Services under US Agricultural Health Study.
In fact, the ONLY scientific entity that plants a seed of doubt about glyphosate is the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the only one that does not assess risk, only hazards. I discuss this here in more detail if you want to read it, but you must understand that the IARC classification actually DOES NOT conclude that glyphosate poses a health risk to humans.
By legitimizing misinformation about the herbicide glyphosate and genetic engineering, AAP will cause harm to public health.
The AAP policy associates glyphosate with health hazards, despite a lack of evidence supporting this. The AAP cherry-picked statements that support their opinion, while ignoring all of the data (summarized above) 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.
Their solution is to recommend people to eat organic food items, which have no health benefits and are, on average, 50% more costly. More than that, organic farming is not free from pesticides, it is more ecologically damaging, and it produces lower yields for the same acreage (discussed more here).
But even more absurd? Suggesting that organic produce is the way to avoid glyphosate to begin with.
Fresh produce items are not grown with glyphosate.
Glyphosate is used only on a subset of crops that have had a plant enzyme replaced with a bacterial version to tolerate the broad-spectrum herbicide. These crops are primarily soybeans, maize, and cotton - much of those are used in animal feed, not in foods you’re going to eat, and certainly not fresh produce.
This type of messaging from the AAP is not only false and uninformed, but completely misleads people about their foods. That doesn’t even mention the fact that there is no evidence that residues of any pesticides, glyphosate or otherwise, (which are TRACE levels people, parts per trillion), are causing harm.
Anti-science disinformation is reckless and irresponsible.
In a world where the effects of climate change on food production and our food supply are substantial, our global population exceeds 8 billion people, and we need to be focusing on MORE affordable and accessible foods for all, this is reckless and irresponsible messaging coming from an organization who claims to advocate for the health of children.
When an organization like the AAP takes up the mantle of anti-science activist organizations, it fuels public outcry. Public outcry influences politicians and legislators, which impacts laws and policies, even if those beliefs are not based in reality. I’m sure you can understand the impacts of misinformed laws and policies, but I did discuss this in a recent short video:
The AAP refuses to uphold the integrity of the scientific method.
The AAP must correct this misinformation in order to restore its own credibility, but more than that, their actions are antithetical to the tenets of scientific inquiry. The AAP is undermining decades of data and suggests GMO foods are linked to various health disorders, including cancer and developmental issues in children. This stance lacks scientific basis and evidence.
This discussion on glyphosate and GMO safety is more than scientific discourse; it's a matter of public health and trust in science. The AAP refuses to critically evaluate the scientific evidence on this topic. They demonstrate a lack of responsibility as a health organization in disseminating accurate information. Instead of alleviating fear among families and reassuring them that our foods are safe and nutritious, AAP is contributing to health anxiety, low science literacy, and the spread of disinformation.
This is bigger than just this topic. It's about ensuring that health professionals are using factual information to guide their clinical recommendations and that public health guidance is always rooted in the best available scientific evidence.
The AAP is eroding the credibility of health guidance. Their resistance to correction is a serious red flag.
An ask for you: please help us correct disinformation.
If you listened to the full discussion between me, Kevin, and Nicole, you’ll note that we submitted the manuscript to Pediatrics, which was rejected.
We also submitted to PNAS and JAMA, who note it is an important topic, but not one they felt was relevant to their readership (how health misinformation and the importance of self-correction isn’t relevant to science and medical professionals is beyond me, but here we are).
Unfortunately, this is a feature of academic publications: anything their editors perceive to be too controversial among their primary readers is often pushed aside.
What they don’t realize is that papers of all types and all quality are frequently exaggerated by pop culture and media outlets, causing FAR more controversy, much of which could be addressed by these types of corrective measures.
Where do we go next? This discussion needs to be somewhere the public can see it. We don’t want to relegate it to a blog or a low tier journal; we want this to serve as a resource for health professionals and scientists who are similarly frustrated with the lack of integrity. We want it to be a reference for the public who are being bombarded with fear-laden clickbait on a daily basis.
If you know of a media outlet who wants to take this on, email me. If you are affiliated with a relevant journal that might be a good fit, email me. If you know of a TV channel that wants to elevate this, email me.
Science disinformation is a global health threat. This only adds fuel to that fire.
Thanks for joining in the fight for science!
Thank you for supporting evidence-based science communication. With outbreaks of preventable diseases, refusal of evidence-based medical interventions, propagation of pseudoscience by prominent public “personalities”, it’s needed now more than ever.
Stay skeptical,
Andrea
“ImmunoLogic” is written by Dr. Andrea Love, PhD - immunologist and microbiologist. She works full-time in life sciences biotech and has had a lifelong passion for closing the science literacy gap and combating pseudoscience and health misinformation as far back as her childhood. This newsletter and her science communication on her social media pages are born from that passion. Follow on Instagram, Threads, Twitter, and Facebook, or support the newsletter by subscribing below:
OMG... I'm only halfway through reading & I must comment.
☹️... what do family values have do with disseminating objecting medical & scientific information?
🤔 🇨🇦☹️ I fully agree what credibility does a socially prof have commenting of scientific material? Sad face I'm Canadian.