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.

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