The American Academy of Pediatrics Misinforms On GMO Foods
The American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP) dropped a misleading policy statement and guidance for the public regarding GMO foods in December. Mostly linked to a herbicide resistant trait, where they handwave aside prior work, and misconstrue others to paint GMO foods in a negative light with a rather broad brush. I was collecting my thoughts on the AAP statements when the Unbiased Science Podcast addressed the issue. I posted it to my science page.
Unfortunately, my level of surprise and disappointment was not alleviated by listening to that podcast so I’m adding my perspective to that of The Unbiased Science Podcast. It will be somewhat redundant, but I’ve got to get it off my chest. If you haven’t listened to the podcast, it is good and the post on their Facebook page has a great introduction with a few different ways to listen/watch the podcast. From the introduction:
Last month, we were shocked and horrified to read the new position piece from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) related to GMO crops and foods. It summarizes a paper written by 3 pediatricians to be published in Pediatrics. In it, they reject decades of scientific evidence and expert consensus under the guise of ‘advocating for pediatric health’. While they attest to the desire to alleviate parents’ fears, this piece does the exact opposite and is antithetical to the stated mission of the AAP.
Before I get into my well kind of a rant about the AAP statements, a brief bit of history regarding the rise and fall of anti-GMO nonsense. The FDA, USDA, and EPA formed a joint framework to evaluate GMOs. In the 1990’s the first GMO crops were authorized in the USA. At close to the same time, the standards for organic farming certification were finalized with USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service. The organic certification arbitrarily included prohibiting GMOs. I say arbitrarily as there are many different plant breeding techniques all of them less precise than GMOs (Transgenesis) which moves one or a few well characterized genes from one organism to another. A good example for the other end of spectrum is mutation breeding which exposes plants to radiation or mutating chemicals to induce random untraceable mutations throughout the genome generating new and novel genes. To only single out GMOs for exclusion was easy, as they hadn’t hit the market yet. Excluding other techniques would have been hard as crops made with those methods were already grown in both organic and regular farming.
What that arbitrary decision did was set up a difference between regular farming and organic farming for a single plant breeding technique. Unfortunately, that difference also provided something that could be exploited for marketing purposes. Some in the organic industry decided to spread misinformation and disinformation about GMOs, especially about the health and safety of consuming them. Marketing 101, make the competition look bad to drive business your way. The USA’s version of the anti-GMO lobby took root.
That marketing tactic didn’t get much traction. The data showing that there was no difference in the health and safety of consuming GMO food verses their non-GMO counterparts for both animals and people, irrespective of the trait the harvested crop was grown with, was strong and just kept growing stronger and stronger over the years. Not that the misinformation didn’t circulate. It did. The very first of my infrequent blogs was pushing back on that kind of misinformation. Which was followed by a blog from a more experienced blogger, The Credible Hulk. The public remained largely indifferent and wasn’t really drawn into the esoteric world of plant breeding techniques. The false information about health and safety just wasn’t pulling people in. Then a little over a decade ago the anti-GMO lobby changed tactics. They moved the focus from the misinformation on health and safety and instead switched to labeling under the guise of transparency. I say guise because they were not arguing to label all plant breeding techniques, just one, and for a label that doesn’t give any added information on nutrition, health, or safety.
It worked. Some organic farming supporters with deep pockets brought GMO labeling initiatives to a few states. This was opposed by biotech and regular farming supporters with much deeper pockets. That finally got the public’s attention and for a couple of years GMOs were making headline news in the United States. The anti-GMO lobby was at its height even if the initiatives didn’t pan out. It was enough to spur congress into action. A national GMO labeling law was passed. It would use the more accurate term of bioengineering instead of the colloquial term GMO. In a classic example of being careful of what you wish for, by winning the labeling fight, the anti-GMO lobby lost its major hook into public awareness. It once again faded into the background, with only the fringe suggesting that GMO foods might be unsafe to eat. The public however did get another word to ignore on food labels, bioengineered. Which brings us to today. In summary the anti-GMO lobby in the US started off small and was mostly background noise for years until they found their labeling hook, which brought mainstream attention, only to have that attention fade once the labeling law passed.
In this environment of faded/fading GMO interest in the USA (though it is still significant elsewhere), in response to nothing I’m aware of, the AAP drops their GMO foods policy. They totally missed the boat on this issue. It hasn’t had significant play in years. I mean, when was the last time you saw a news report for a march against Monsanto? Heck, that lost steam well before Monsanto was purchased by and then rolled into Bayer Crop Science.
I’ve got no idea why the authors of that policy felt the need to put it out now. That was very puzzling. And disappointing. Some of the misleading information is blatant. Take this quote from the policy being explained to parents.
Can’t we grow food without herbicides?
Yes, we can. For example, foods that are certified organic by the USDA are raised without synthetic chemical herbicides or pesticides (bug sprays). Organic foods include protein sources (meat, dairy, eggs and fish) from animals that eat only GMO-free feed.
A normal person reading that would assume that certified organic growers don’t use any kind of herbicides or pesticides. They would be wrong. A simple google search would show a long list of pesticides available for organic farmers including herbicides and some exceptions allowing a few synthetic ones too. To be clear both organic and regular farming use pesticides, although some used in organic farming are not tracked with routine testing. Rest assured farmers know what they are doing and food from organic as well as regular farming are safe to eat. Farming methods and breeding techniques have no impact on the safety of what you’ll find in your grocery store.
As an aside, in case you thought the only way to make herbicide resistance crops was with bioengineering, it isn’t. There are non-GMO herbicide resistance crops.
It is just so frustrating. The AAP is usually a trustworthy source. My experience with them is mostly related to vaccines and they are spot on with that topic. Vaccines are basic health care and that falls directly in their wheelhouse. The AAP uses the resources of the FDA and CDC to provide informed guidance for their members and the public. Great stuff.
The weird thing is that they didn’t do the same with GMOs. The FDA even has a website that speaks directly to bioengineered foods called “Feed Your Mind” that gives consumers current information. The resource was right there and readily available for the AAP. Here is an excerpt:
Do GMOs affect your health?
GMO foods are as healthful and safe to eat as their non-GMO counterparts. Some GMO plants have actually been modified to improve their nutritional value.
An example is GMO soybeans with healthier oils that can be used to replace oils that contain trans fats. Since GMO foods were introduced in the 1990s, research has shown that they are just as safe as non-GMO foods.
Additionally, research shows that GMO plants fed to farm animals are as safe as non-GMO animal food.
That could have been their policy statement. Easy peasy.
Instead, the authors felt the need to throw shade on GMO foods.
Per Build Up Dietitians Dr. Kevin Folta, Professor of the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida, had this to say as an initial reaction to the AAP’s policy:
“If this paper was the first chapter of a graduate dissertation the student would fail and be dismissed from the program. The authors use vague language, inaccuracies, citation bias, inappropriate citation, omission of peer-reviewed literature that does not support their narrative, and imply risk where none has been conclusively demonstrated at levels detected. The authors use irrelevant terminology used to shape a narrative rather than describe the current state of the science. They did get some aspects right, such as no known risk from genetic engineering and the problem of herbicide resistant weeds. But while claiming to help parents make better decisions they muddy an important discussion to the point that parents will just stop feeding their kids safe affordable food.”
I can’t compare it to a dissertation, but for me reading though the AAP’s policy paper and its guidance for parents felt like I was reviewing marketing materials for the organic food industry and the use of their labels. It did not come across as something reviewing the science to give their members and parents a good grasp of the topic. More like the deceptive fear mongering the EWG uses on pesticide residues, which I’m guessing may have been something that misinformed the authors. Perhaps because the AAP was reaching well outside of its wheelhouse, the authors and reviewers fell for and then propagated misinformation. They are a medical organization, and the intricacies of agriculture and agricultural biotechnology are not things you’d expect a medical organization to know how to navigate.
Well, if you made it this far thanks following along with the rant. I’ll leave it with this final thought.
The AAP is a trusted source with a powerful influence. To echo a well-known phrase, with great power comes a great responsibility. They have not lived up to that credo this time. In giving their members and the public this misinformed policy, they are hurting the children they want to protect, especially lower income folks who may forgo a well-rounded diet of affordable and perfectly healthy foods. Parents might pick and choose an unbalanced diet of more expensive foods or eliminate other necessities to buy that more expensive food. Misinformation has consequences. I hope the AAP will correct their policy.
A follow-up from the Unbiased Podcast’s Facebook page. Unsurprisingly we are on the same wavelength.
Yesterday, we posted (and aired an episode) voicing our extreme disappointment with the American Academy of Pediatrics’ recent policy statement on GMOs. The statement is riddled with misinformation and only serves to fearmonger and spread undue concerns about GMO foods. The reason we are so upset is that there are VERY real consequences to people being scared away from safe, affordable, and healthy foods.
1–14–24 Science-Based Medicine weighs in:
Science-Based Medicine just published an article that goes into far more detail regarding the flaws with the AAP policy than the podcast or what I’ve said above. Because of that I thought it warranted being highlighted on its own rather than just adding it to my Additional Articles Section. I highly recommend it. It is a well-crafted and well referenced piece:
On Dec 11, 2023, a clinical report titled, “Use of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) — Containing Food Products in Children” was released from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). This was accompanied by an educational article meant for parents titled, “Are GMO Foods Safe for My Child? AAP Policy Explained” on the AAP’s healthychildren.org website.
As a pediatrician with an interest in this subject, I was excited to read these papers. I thought it would be great to see the AAP lay to rest concerns about food containing ingredients derived from genetic engineering (GE). Instead, what I found was a piece filled with misinformation and missing key articles that support the well-researched conclusion that there is no legitimate evidence of negative health effects after more than three decades of intense study and surveillance.
After I picked my jaw up off the ground and took some deep breaths to calm my fury, I dove into the concerns presented, trying to be open minded that maybe I had something to learn. After thorough review, though, I’m not convinced by the concerns presented in this report. In fact, I’m majorly concerned that this piece is going to spread like wildfire and spark unnecessary fear amongst healthcare workers and then onto patients. I can’t let this be. So, I’m going to use this article to help dispel inaccurate information and unfounded worries brought up by this report. Here goes!
_________________________________________________________________
Additional articles discussing the AAP’s Clinical Report:
“Are children and pregnant women risking their health by eating “GMO” foods? The American Association of Pediatrics controversially says ‘yes’. The real question: Is the AAP endangering the food vulnerable?”
“New Report Urging Parents to Buy Organic Could Hurt Americans’ Health: Experts”
“A Counter to the American Academy of Pediatrics Hit Piece on Genetically Modified Organisms”
“How Poor Communication Can Cause Harm”
“Is the American Academy of Pediatrics Endangering Public Health?”
“Are GMO foods safe?”
“Trust in science dies when health professionals spread disinformation and refuse to correct mistakes”
“A Pediatrician’s Letter to the AAP”
_________________________________________________________________
Further reading related to the AAP policy that may be of interest:
Are GMOs Safe? Breaking Down the Science of Science-ified Foods
“Toward More Intuitive Toxicology Information”
EPA: “Food and Pesticides”
EPA: “Glyphosate”
“Statement from Health Canada on Glyphosate”
“The glyphosate debacle: How a misleading study about the alleged risks of the weedkiller Roundup and gullible reporters helped fuel a cancer scare”
“17 Questions About Glyphosate”
_________________________________________________________________
References:
“GMO Crops, Animal Food, and Beyond”
“In Support of GE Salmon”
“Use of Use of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO)-Containing Food Products in Children”
“Are GMO Foods Safe for My Child? AAP Policy Explained”
The AAP Misinforms
“Pediatricians Serving A Menu of GMO Misinformation”
“About the Coordinated Framework”
“Crop Modification Techniques”
“Richard Green on the Scientific Consensus and GMOs”
“The International Scientific Consensus on Genetically Engineered Food Safety”
“Out-of-State money floods campaigns for and against GMO labeling”
“Obama signs bill requiring labeling of GMO Foods”
“Frequently Asked Questions on the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard”
“Organic Herbicides: What They Are, What They Contain, And How To Use Them”
“The list of organic pesticides approved by the USDA”
“Inconvenient Truth: There Are Pesticide Residues On Organics”
“Clearfield-the easy option for weed control.”
“Misinformation in the media: global coverage of GMOs 2019–2021”
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645698.2022.2140568
“Agricultural Biotechnology: Feed Your Mind”
“Build Up Catch Up — 12/15/23”
“The high price of food labels”
“The “Dirty Dozen”: a fear-based marketing ploy”
Follow-up post from the Unbiased Science Podcast:
“A good journal breaks bad: AAP spreads misinformation about glyphosate”
“Are children and pregnant women risking their health by eating “GMO” foods? The American Association of Pediatrics controversially says ‘yes’. The real question: Is the AAP endangering the food vulnerable?”
“New Report Urging Parents to Buy Organic Could Hurt Americans’ Health: Experts”
“A Counter to the American Academy of Pediatrics Hit Piece on Genetically Modified Organisms”
“How Poor Communication Can Cause Harm”
“Is the American Academy of Pediatrics Endangering Public Health?
Are GMOs Safe? Breaking Down the Science of Science-ified Foods
“Toward More Intuitive Toxicology Information”
EPA: “Food and Pesticides”
EPA: “Glyphosate”
“Statement from Health Canada on Glyphosate”
“The glyphosate debacle: How a misleading study about the alleged risks of the weedkiller Roundup and gullible reporters helped fuel a cancer scare”
“17 Questions About Glyphosate”
