You can’t be a stalwart defender of scientific consensus, expertise and evidence-based medicine while taking contrarian positions on critical public health issues because it suits your ideology. Cherry-picking the science you defend in this fashion badly undermines your credibility and gives the public a perfect excuse to disregard evidence that clashes with their political preferences. Yet, this is exactly the sort of hypocrisy the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has engaged in on vaccine safety and genetically engineered crops.
On July 7, The AAP filed a federal lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., challenging a May directive to remove COVID-19 booster recommendations for pregnant women and healthy children. This move, the AAP argues, undermines decades of clinical evidence and poses a public health emergency, especially after Kennedy dismissed the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and appointed vaccine-skeptic allies in its place. The lawsuit ostensibly underscores AAP’s commitment to evidence-based vaccine policy, positioning it as a tireless opponent of politicized health decisions.
However, AAP isn’t as pro-science as it claims to be. A December 2023 position paper in AAP’s flagship publication Pediatrics advised against feeding children food derived from genetically engineered crops, contradicting decades of high-quality science and ignoring intense criticism from experts. The group’s stance echoes discredited claims about pesticide safety, GMOs, and the exaggerated benefits of organic food, aligning AAP with discredited anti-biotechnology critics—including Kennedy’s activist group Children’s Health Defense.
A comprehensive rebuttal authored by multiple experts, including microbiologist Andrea Love and pediatrician Nicole Keller, was rejected by Pediatrics without justification, suggesting an effort to shield the AAP’s anti-GMO position from scrutiny. AAP ignored all subsequent feedback from experts urging the organization to reconsider its fringe guidance to parents.
The inescapable conclusion? AAP has endorsed a science-rejectionist approach, paralleling Kennedy’s unscientific stance on vaccine policy. The only sensible solution is for AAP to retract its flawed GMO guidance and collaborate with experts in agriculture and risk assessment to ensure it gives parents the best possible food safety advice.
Join GLP founder Jon Entine and longtime contributors Liza Dunn and Cameron English as they discuss AAP’s fair-weather science activism. Follow this link or listen to the conversation below:
— @camjenglish (@camjenglish) July 18, 2025
Dr. Liza Dunn is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD
Related on the SLP
Jon Entine, founder and executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project, is an Emmy-winning investigative TV News producer and author of seven books, including three on genetics. Please follow him on X at @JonEntine
Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish
