New Report Urging Parents to Buy Organic Could Hurt Americans’ Health: Experts

Immunologist and microbiologist Andrea Love, Ph.D., recently received a flood of messages from concerned parents and pediatricians. They were all inquiring about one thing: Is it safe to feed my family conventional fruits and vegetables?

Listeners of her Unbiased Science podcast had come across a January 2024 report published in Pediatrics, the flagship journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), warning parents about genetically modified organism (GMO) based foods and conventional pesticides. The paper suggested unknown long-term impacts on children’s health and urged more research and transparency in food labeling.

The Pediatrics report also suggested a solution: “Families who desire to completely avoid GMO products can do so by purchasing organic products or those labeled as non-GMO based on third-party testing.”

Love was shocked. “It's essentially legitimizing fallacies about what these crops and food products are,” the scientist tells The Messenger. “There's so much misinformation about GMOs and what that actually means … a lot of it is exploiting low science literacy.”

Genetically modified foods are those that have had their DNA changed via genetic engineering to better tolerate herbicides and to select specific desired traits. The process was introduced in the 1990s and generally impacts crops like corn and soybeans. 

While there have been lingering public concerns, GMO-based foods are entirely safe according to numerous agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The FDA says that “studies show that GMOs do not affect you differently than non-GMO foods.” The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine also released a report in 2016 about the scientific consensus surrounding genetically modified food safety. 

Andrew Bartholomaeus, Ph.D., a toxicologist with expertise in GMOs, says the paper ignores decades of data surrounding GMOs and demonstrates a lack of understanding of how agricultural chemical regulations work. “[Genetically modified foods] have been around for 30 years and there hasn't been a single credible paper showing any form of harm,” Bartholomaeus tells The Messenger. 

Jon Entine, executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project, a non-profit focused on challenging mis- and disinformation on agricultural biotechnology, adds “there's not one major credible federal, national or global organization that has raised any questions about the health implications of genetic modification. Just none.”

A contested report

The Pediatrics report stated that further evaluation is necessary to “examine the potential health hazards of the herbicides used in the production of GMO foods.” 

Experts counter that GMO foods have been extensively studied for decades.

“The academic literature does not support anything that the AAP said in this report,” Cameron English, director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health, tells The Messenger, specifically referencing speculation about the health impacts of genetically engineered food and associated pesticide exposure.

Love says the AAP report suffers from a citation bias—cherry-picked studies, misinterpretation of data and sources that ignore more recent and robust research. 

“This paper should be retracted,” adds Entine. 

The AAP did not respond to The Messenger’s request for comment.

Claims that regulatory agencies don’t consider the risk pesticide exposure poses to children are “just blatantly incorrect,” says English.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) oversees and approves pesticides while the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regularly tests samples of domestic and imported produce. More than 99% of tested samples have pesticide residues below benchmark levels established by the EPA, according to the most recent USDA pesticide data report.

Foods can have trace amounts of pesticide residue, a miniscule amount that poses no reported harm to a person, these experts say. To give an example, a child could consume more than 5,200 blueberries in one day without any effect, even if the blueberries had the highest pesticide residue recorded by the USDA, according to the Pesticide Residue Calculator. 

Meanwhile, the idea that organic fruits and vegetables are pesticide-free is in itself a myth. Organic farming also uses pesticides, albeit more naturally sourced than synthetic pesticides. (Natural does not connote better.) 

“Everything is toxic — even the chemicals used in organic farming,” explains Bartholomaeus, noting that the dose is what matters. “Residue levels are controlled in crops that are conventional, [genetically modified] or organic and all residues must be below safe levels even for a high consumer of the food.”

To date, there is insufficient evidence supporting the idea that organic is superior in health benefits. A 2012 Stanford University meta-analysis study of 237 existing studies compared organic to non-organic food, only to conclude that, overall, they “showed no evidence of differences in nutrition-related health outcomes.”

“There's nothing wrong with organic food, but there's nothing special about it either [regarding human health],” says English. “The report implies that there's a [health] benefit when there is none.”

More harm than good?

Science experts worry that the AAP’s report veers into fear-mongering territory. Already, nearly 40% of Americans worry that genetically modified foods are unsafe to eat, according to a 2020 Pew Research Center survey. 

English says that while the paper doesn’t outright state that consuming GMOs will make one sick, it implies that. “They're capitalizing on parents’ very legitimate concern.” 

Such rhetoric can be counterproductive, potentially impacting parents’ shopping carts. According to recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, half of American children don’t eat a single daily vegetable. Parents who are made fearful of conventional vegetables, especially those who can’t afford organic (which is usually pricier), might avoid the produce aisle altogether.

A 2016 study of five hundred low-income shoppers’ habits indicated that some planned to consume fewer fruits and vegetables after being alerted of pesticide residue concerns such as the Environmental Working Group’s Dirty Dozen list. (The study received partial funding from the Alliance for Food and Farming, a nonprofit representing both organic and conventional farmers.)

Love calls the Pediatrics stance an “elitist, privileged take” that hurts lower-income families. “You're essentially telling parents they should be paying more for a product that is, in reality, not better nutritionally.” 

Experts suggest consumers follow the body of evidence and scientific consensus. Still, they express disappointment with the AAP’s report, noting it could further erode fragile trust in scientific institutions.

“It's an enormous problem,” says English. Parents might think, "'If you were misleading me about this, then why should I trust you about vaccines, nutrition, exercise or what medications are appropriate for my child?’ These are all downstream effects.”

This isn’t the first time the AAP has come under scrutiny. In 2012, critics took aim at a report on pesticide exposure in children. More recently, some journalists and researchers have also questioned a recent Pediatrics paper on youth gender medicine. 

“I think there is a general sense that AAP has kind of eroded some of their credibility,” laments Love, noting that experts may be less inclined to reference them. “And it's unfortunate because I would love for parents to have really reputable sources of information.”