Viewpoint: American Academy of Pediatrics fiasco — International Agency for the Research on Cancer is the cancer at the heart of the anti-glyphosate movement

In today’s world, due to the lopsided impact of the bullshit asymmetry principle, the internet is overflowing with misinformation. However, amidst this deluge of falsehoods, there are organisations that steadfastly promote scientific facts rather than succumbing to the influence of interest groups or fashion. These organisations and the individuals within them are beacons of rationality serve a crucial role and it’s truly disheartening and frustrating when they deviate from scientific principles, potentially undoing years of collective effort. For instance, the recent promotion of pseudoscience by the World Health Organization (WHO) was a significant blow to those who hold such institutions in high regard. Now the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has seemingly outdone the WHO by publishing an article which parrots the same anti-GMO rhetoric spouted by the synthetic “organic movement”. Contrary to legacy media, what the AAP published was not a scholarly review but a cherry-picked opinion piece, by authors and editors intent on misinforming the public and physicians. Moreover, the organisation doubled down, continuing to propagate the false claims through additional media channels, even after physicians and scientists reached out to discuss the inaccuracies their article contained. In this blog post, I plan to counter what I consider to be the most egregious examples of sleight of hand and flat-out lies in the AAP’s publication.

The decision of the AAP to reference this research paper raises concerns due to its limitations and could be seen as deceptive, especially given the potential implications for public health. It is clear that its inclusion in the AAP article is to fuel pre-existing concerns regarding glyphosate found in urine published in other questionable studies. However, the presence of glyphosate and its metabolites in urine is not inherently a negative finding. The fact that the human body excretes these compounds and does not accumulate them should be seen as a positive. Furthermore, it is crucial for individuals to realise that the concentrations of these compounds detected in urine are exceedingly small. The saying “the dose makes the poison” is particularly relevant in this context, as it underscores the principle that toxicity is dependent on the dosage received. Therefore, the mere presence of these compounds in trace amounts does not necessarily indicate harm, and it is essential for people to grasp the significance of dosage in determining toxicity.

The glaring shortcoming of this scientific article lies in its exclusive focus on herbicides used in conjunction with GMOs while completely omitting any discussion of herbicides associated with organic farming. Compounds used in organic farming, such as chlorine dioxide, copper sulphate, lime sulphur, potassium hypochlorite, and ferric phosphate, often possess higher toxicity, reduced biodegradability and an increased tendency to bioaccumulate. Additionally, organic farming may require larger quantities of these compounds for effective application, a fact that is conveniently left unmentioned. It’s important to emphasise that I’m not suggesting organic pesticides are inherently harmful when used correctly; rather, I am highlighting the hypocrisy evident in the AAP’s selective focus. As an agency primarily concerned with the health and wellbeing of children and young adults, the AAP’s disregard for addressing the potential risks associated with organic farming practices is deeply troubling.

Organic farming, often championed as a healthier and environmentally friendly alternative, is in reality a marketing strategy that capitalises on and perpetuates the fears and misconceptions of its consumers, to charge a premium for products that are no different than their conventional counterparts. This trend has tangible consequences. While listening to a podcast discussing this paper, I heard a distressing story about a doctor dealing with a child who was failing to thrive because the parents insisted on feeding the child organic food, which they could not afford. Consequently, they ended up feeding their child less, highlighting the real-world impact of these deceptive narratives.

The AAP is perpetuating fear and misinformation among the very people it exists to protect. When influential organisations neglect to provide a comprehensive and balanced view of scientific findings, they inadvertently impede the informed decision making of individuals, thus hindering the advancement of knowledge and the betterment of society.

I hope they see the errors of their way and post a retraction soon.

Myles Power is a chemist from the North East of England, who loves to make videos trying to counter pseudoscience and debunk quackery in all of its various forms. Find Myles on X @powerm1985