Ignore Science, Advance an Agenda

The Scandal at the Heart of the American Academy of Pediatrics

Editor’s Introduction

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) published a report highlighting what the authors had seen as health risks of GMOs that has since become the official AAP guidance for pediatricians when parents seek advice on food decisions for their children. Their recommendation is to have parents choose organic food even though they had presented no scientific evidence that organic was safer than conventionally-grown food. Such advice would cause financial stress for many families, not to mention the lack of access in many “food deserts”, implying that many American families would be consuming fewer servings of fruit and vegetables if they were to follow AAP’s derisory advice.

The Firebreak has been publishing articles demonstrating how the authors of the report let their political bias lead them into a very poor research methodology and how the Pediatrics editor and the authors circled the wagons, intractably ignoring reactions from the scientific community, including the cogent critical response of one of its members. The AAP leadership has also failed to address the conflict of interest of one of the report’s authors, Philip Landrigan, who has been leading a project on possible health impacts from herbicides funded by the organic food industry lobby and tort law firms benefiting from glyphosate lawsuits.

One scientist who reacted, Dr Kevin Folta, researcher and professor at the University of Florida reacted to AAP report with concern. As a molecular biologist, Folta has been conducting genomics and molecular biology research in plant genetic improvement throughout his career. His expertise in the field commands respect, especially compared to the lack of plant breeding research experience of the AAP report’s authors. He contacted the AAP Pediatrics editor, Lewis First, asking to present a response. First promised Folta he would publish 250 words, which Folta did submit, only for the Pediatrics editor to go back on his promise and ignore the response. This though was not Lewis First’s first transgression.  The authors of this AAP anti-GMO report have ignored any and all critical assessments of their work, pouring salt into the wounds of the scientific method.

Folta’s Response (by invitation)

Dear Pediatrics Readership, 

The article by Abrams et al. represents a stunning example of how misinformation spreads - even through a credible conduit. Pediatrics is a respected journal, so when a paper implies a technology is dangerous, physicians and the general public take note. That’s good. But if the message runs counter to the scientific consensus built from tens of thousands of studies, regulatory approvals, and 50 years of use, it confuses the issue and breaks trust for those of us that communicate science. Worse, it breaks the credibility of Pediatrics, a journal that needs to lead scientific discourse.

As an editor, reviewer and scientific author, I was shocked by the disconnect between this work and the broad scientific consensus. The article lacks scholarly rigor, suffers from omission, and seeks to create a narrative rather than correctly communicate evidence. While there are many problems with this work, some of the most glaring problems are:

1.  Failed Central Premise. There is no direct evidence that glyphosate causes cancer at dietary or occupational exposures. The IARC, other agencies within the World Health Organization, and dozens of international regulators stand by this conclusion. This is not stated in the review.

2. Citation Bias. Cited evidence comes from a meta-analysis by Zhang et al., 2019, which showed a relatively slight increase in risk of a family of rare blood cancers. Critics indicate that this work compared disparate datasets to find an association at only the highest exposure and time point (Kabat et al., 2021). Abrams et al. also cite a single paper by perennially incorrect authors that genetically engineered crops (“GMOs”) are not safe (Hillbeck et al.,2016). The largest study of 54,000 applicators over decades shows no association with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but the authors curiously fail to cite that (Andriotti et al., 2018).

3. Omission of Limitations. While the cited research articles are clear about critical limitations of the studies, these authors cite the same work as conclusive evidence of the dangers of glyphosate.

4. Confusing Hazard and Risk. The authors continually conflate detection with risk. The dose makes the poison and analytical chemistry techniques can detect concentrations orders of magnitude below physiological relevance.

5. Logical Fallacy. The authors continually make the argument from ignorance, stating that “more study is needed” when the crops and herbicide have been massively studied, and risks and benefits are well described.

These are just several of the problems with this work. Many independent scientists and physicians have criticized the work online, so multiple dissections are available. While it is impossible to know intent, the language used and messaging seems highly motivated, like almost a commercial for organic crop production.

 We remain open to the idea that genetic engineering and associated chemistries could carry undue risk. But that conclusion comes from evidence leading to consensus, not cherry-picked and assembled morsels that manufacture risk in a biased narrative.  

 The authors are invited to join me in discussion on the Talking Biotech Podcast anytime to discuss the work.

Kevin Folta published this letter on his page when it became evident that the Pediatrics editor, Lewis First, did not honor his promise.

---

Firebreak editor’s note: The article by Zhang et al, cited and relied upon in the AAP report, was recently excluded from evidence in a California court case where the judge labeled it: “junk science”.

As criticism of the political bias of the AAP report escalated throughout the scientific community, Folta, together with AAP member, pediatrician, Dr Nicole Keller held a webinar via Zoom on the report. They invited the authors of the AAP report, Steven Abrams, Jaclyn Lewis Albin and Philip Landrigan, to participate in the scientific discussion. The AAP authors did not even give them the respect of a reply. Crickets.

There remain many questions:

• Why did Lewis First ignore Kevin Folta’s contribution after promising to publish it as part of the scientific dialogue process?

• Who made that decision (we know Philip Landrigan’s Ramazzini network has been critical of Folta in the past)?

• Why won’t the AAP management intervene to try to restore the lost reputation of the Academy?

• Are any of the AAP pediatricians taking this anti-GMO position seriously when giving advice to their patients?

• Why has Lewis First not retracted the report given author, Philip Landrigan’s published conflicts of interest with the organic food industry lobby and tort law firms funding his research projects?

• How long does the AAP think they can circle the wagons and ignore basic scientific evidence?

In reference to the last question, The Firebreak will continue to release documents and publish information about this Pediatrics scandal until respect for science comes back to the AAP.