Mother Jones joins science-literate chorus criticizing the American Academy of Pediatrics’ bungled critique of GMOs and glyphosate

png
Credit: Patch

Last month, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued new guidelines for doctors fielding parents’ questions about the risks of foods containing genetically modified ingredients. Given the morass of GMO misinformation on social media, the report was an opportunity for experts to set the records straight on how pediatricians should advise their patients on a very thorny question: Is it safe for kids to eat foods that contain GMOs?

But soon after the report was published, critics began to point out what they saw as major shortcomings: They alleged that the authors undersell the benefits of GMOs, overstate the benefits of organic and non-GMOs, and conflate concerns about genetically modified foods with worries about the cancer risks of herbicide exposure. Others noted that the report’s recommendation of organic food for people who want to steer clear of GMOs discounts the many caregivers who can’t afford it.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.
The AAP authors sent me additional studies that they said bolstered their argument about the dangers of glyphosate, but the research they cited focused on high exposure levels—the kinds of doses one might receive as a farmer who works with the pesticide every day. That’s extremely important data to consider, but it’s not the same as studying exposure to the trace amounts of glyphosate present in children’s food. Caulfield said that he agreed with the authors on the need for rigorous monitoring and research on the risks of herbicide exposure, especially for farmers. But, he said, “the report seems to merge concerns about herbicides as a way of condemning GMOs more broadly.”

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-25-2026-12_23_17-PM
No, Bill Gates did not secretly engineer ticks to promote veganism
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-19-2026-04_11_20-PM
Daubert for Dummies—Scientific Reliability in U.S. Courts: Daubert, Rule 702, and Made-for-Litigation Evidence
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-17-2026-10_52_43-AM
Anguished parents, doctors in tears: Utah’s long measles outbreak takes a toll
Screenshot-2026-06-22-at-9.04.46-PM
Kennedy's nutrition prescription for medical schools: Real problem, bad cure
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-23-2026-03_12_23-PM
Is cellular reprogramming junk science? Nearly 20 patients are getting eye injections in the first FDA-cleared cellular trial
Screenshot-2026-06-15-at-1.55.27-PM
America's trust in Trump-Kennedy's CDC health recommendations is plunging
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-15-2026-11_51_00-AM-4
Viewpoint: As the International Association for Research on Cancer loses influence, activists and trial lawyers scramble to protect a lucrative playbook
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-22-2026-01_30_11-PM
Facts & Fallacies podcast: Psychedelics for PTSD? Examining RFK, Jr's claims about ibogaine

Sorry. No data so far.

glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.