Shame on Pediatrics. Rejecting Scientist's Comments
A lot has been said about the journal Pediatrics December 2023 Clinical Report on "Using GMOs on Children". The poor scholarship and citation bias are alarming, and the bias against safe technology is clear.
When I wrote to editor-in-chief Dr. Lewis First, he indicated that I was invited to submit a response to the article that would be posted below the article on its website. I submitted my response, and it was not published on the site. My guess is that it illuminated the bankruptcies of the article in a manner that ran counter to the authors', editor's and journal's narrative.
So I'll publish my comment here.
Dear Pediatrics Readership,
The article by Abrams et al. represents a stunning example
of how misinformation spreads- even through a credible conduit. Pediatrics
is a respected journal, so when a paper implies a technology is dangerous, physicians
and the general public take note. That’s good. But if the message runs counter
to the scientific consensus built from tens of thousands of studies, regulatory
approvals, and 50 years of use, it confuses the issue and breaks trust for
those of us that communicate science. Worse, it breaks the credibility of Pediatrics,
a journal that needs to lead scientific discourse.
2. 2. Citation Bias. Cited evidence comes from a meta-analysis by Zhang et al., 2019, which
showed a relatively slight increase in risk of a family of rare blood cancers.
Critics indicate that this work compared disparate datasets to find an
association at only the highest exposure and time point (Kabat et al., 2021). Abrams
et al. also cite a single paper by perennially incorrect authors that genetically
engineered crops (“GMOs”) are not safe (Hillbeck et al.,2016). The largest
study of 54,000 applicators over decades shows no association with non-Hodgkin
lymphoma, but the authors curiously fail to cite that (Andriotti et al., 2018).
3. 3. Omission
of Limitations. While the cited research articles are clear about critical
limitations of the studies, these authors cite the same work as conclusive evidence
of the dangers of glyphosate.
4. 4.Confusing
Hazard and Risk. The authors continually conflate detection with risk. The dose
makes the poison and analytical chemistry techniques can detect concentrations orders
of magnitude below physiological relevance.
5. 5. Logical
Fallacy. The authors continually make the argument from ignorance, stating that
“more study is needed” when the crops and herbicide have been massively
studied, and risks and benefits are well described.