Pediatrics academy faces pushback on GMO advice

Meredith Wadman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adt2249

IF: 56.9

2024-09-21

Science

Abstract:"Fearmongering" guidelines ignore wealth of scientific evidence, critics say

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Use of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO)-Containing Food Products in Children

Steven A Abrams,Jaclyn Lewis Albin,Philip J Landrigan,COMMITTEE ON NUTRITION,COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND CLIMATE CHANGE,Mark R Corkins,Cynthia L Blanco,George J Fuchs,Praveen S Godoy,Tamara S Hannon,C Wesley Lindsey,Ellen S Rome,Andrew Bremer,Andrea Lots,Coria Perrine,Ana Sant'Anna,Cheryl Funanich,Debra L Burrowes,Aparna Bole,Sophie J Balk,Lori G Byron,Gredia Maria Huerta-Montañez,Steven M Marcus,Abby L Nerlinger,Lisa H Patel,Rebecca Philipsborn,Alan D Woolf,Lauren Zajac,Kimberly A Gray,Jeanne Briskin,Nathaniel G DeNicola,Matt Karwowski,Mary H Ward,Paul Spire

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2023-064774

2024-01-01

PEDIATRICS

Abstract:Families increasingly raise questions about the use of genetically modified organism (GMO)-containing food products. These products are widely found in the US food supply but originate from a narrow list of crops. Although GMO technology could be used to increase the micronutrient content of foods, this does not occur in the United States; instead, GMO technology has been used to make crops resistant to chemical herbicides. As a result, herbicide use has increased exponentially. The World Health Organization's International Agency on Research for Cancer has determined that glyphosate, an herbicide widely used in producing GMO food crops, is a probable human carcinogen. Measurable quantities of glyphosate are detected in some GMO foods. Families who wish to minimize GMO food products can do so by focusing on a dietary pattern of primarily whole, plant-based foods while minimizing ultra-processed foods. Pediatricians play a vital role in their efforts to minimize fear-based messaging and support families through shared decision-making. Pediatrician awareness of GMO labeling can guide individualized conversations, particularly that non-GMO labeling does not indicate organic status and that increased cost of some non-GMO foods, especially if also organic, may limit this choice for many families.
Children and Genetically Engineered Food: Potentials and Problems

Hilary A. Perr

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1536-4801.2002.tb07872.x

2024-01-04

Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition

Abstract:Changes in food production and dietary practices are occurring faster than our understanding of their potential impact on children's health. Traditionally, pediatric gastroenterologists have studied food with respect to its nutritive value and digestibility, its influence on metabolism, its growth‐promoting characteristics, and its relationship to risk and severity of disease. Biotechnology is now expanding the science of food to include disease prevention and treatment, as well as the feeding of children on a global scale. Bioengineered ("genetically modified", or "transgenic") plants were initially developed to enhance the food supply by increasing crop yields. Such previously developed transgenic plants are now prevalent worldwide and appear in many processed food products. The implementation of the technology of genetic modulation of food plants has led to considerable fear, controversy, and confusion as the understanding of the technology is poor in the general population. This review presents an overview of genetically modified food crops and their potential unique benefits and risks to children's health. Political, economical, and ecological issues related to transgenic crops are not discussed.

pediatrics,gastroenterology & hepatology,nutrition & dietetics
Microbiome interventions for children raise the ethical stakes

Sam Jones

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03971-5

IF: 64.8

2024-12-06

Nature

Abstract:Physicians are voicing concerns about a lack of regulation and the risks of parents taking matters into their own hands. Physicians are voicing concerns about a lack of regulation and the risks of parents taking matters into their own hands.

multidisciplinary sciences
Selling before telling: why the government needs to take a second look at genetically engineered foods

Jill Rubin,Anna Tesmenitsky

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2190/QWDV-8UBC-CN7E-FC83

Abstract:This article documents the early warning signs of health and environmental dangers of DDT, vinyl chloride, and leaded gasoline. In each case, industry scientists and/or public health officials warned of potential hazards but their advice was ignored at great cost to human health and the environment. Now, genetically engineered (GE) foods have been introduced to our food supply and exhibit many of the same early warning signs. Leaded gasoline was sold in the United States from 1923 through 1986. The additive was introduced without safety testing even though it was known that lead was neurotoxic. Industry efforts kept the federal government from studying or banning leaded gasoline for decades. Leaded gasoline released millions of tons of lead into the air. Lead can cause brain damage and even death. Vinyl chloride, used to make PVC plastic, has a similar history. When scientific studies confirmed that vinyl chloride was a carcinogen, industry representatives signed a secrecy agreement to keep the information from becoming public. DDT was used all over the United States to kill unwanted pests. Evidence of DDT's environmental and health impacts began to emerge in the 1950s. DDT is now deemed a probable human carcinogen, suspected of causing liver damage, and blamed for triggering premature births. GE foods have been introduced into our food supply with no required safety testing. Initial independent studies indicate that GE foods can trigger unexpected or unknown allergic reactions, may damage organs and immune system, can contaminate neighboring crops, and may cause ecological damage. Yet, industry studies about GE food products are considered proprietary and are not available for peer review or public scrutiny. In reaction to the rejection of GE foods by many European countries and companies, the biotechnology industry is waging a massive propaganda effort in the United States. But when it comes to our food supply, we should not take any health or safety risks. We make these recommendations: *Hold biotechnology companies liable for any harm that comes from the use of GE foods. This will give them a financial incentive to ensure that GE foods are safe and provide compensation to any future victims. *Place a moratorium on GE foods until they are proven safe through independent, long-term testing for health and environmental impacts. *Require labeling of all GE foods that are proven safe to give consumers the right to know and choose.
New Obesity Guidance for Pediatrics: Medicalizing Obesity or Acquiescing to Our Obesogenic Culture?

Paul E. Terry

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/08901171231161864

2023-02-25

American Journal of Health Promotion

Abstract:American Journal of Health Promotion, Ahead of Print. The publication of the American Academy of Pediatrics report on a "Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Treatment of Children and Adolescents with Obesity" has been met with considerable debate about the merits of taking a more aggressive treatment approach. Supporters of the new guidance argue that the time has come to treat childhood obesity with more intensive behavior therapy along with, as needed, weight loss medications and bariatric surgery. Detractors of the report believe that medicalizing this condition will lead to greater stigma and increase health disparities. Critics of the new guidance favor a "healthy at every size" approach. This editorial examines the reasoning behind these arguments. Given obesity is a complex issue that demands both clinical and societal solutions, this commentary advocates for multi-disciplinary cooperation and understanding in order to achieve an effective balance between prevention and treatment.

public, environmental & occupational health
[The critical scientists' voice]

F Lewgoy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/s0104-59702000000300019

Abstract:The intricate debate over genetically modified organisms (GMOs) involves powerful economic interests, as well as ethical, legal, emotional and scientific aspects, some of which are dealt with in this paper.(It is possible to identify two main groups of scientists across the GMOs divide: the triumphalist and the critical group.) Scientists in the triumphalist group state that GMOs and their derivatives are safe for the environment and do not offer health hazards any more than similar, non-genetically modified, products. This view is disputed by the critical scientists, who are prompted by the scarcity of studies on the environmental impacts and toxicity of GMOs, and who point out flaws in tests performed by the same companies which hold the patents. They are also critical of the current state of the process of gene transference, lacking accuracy, a fact which, coupled with the scant knowledge available about 97% of the genome functions, may produce unforseeable effects with risks for the environment and public health yet to be assessed. Examples of such effects are: the transference of alien genes [??] to other species, the emergence of toxins, the creation of new viruses, the impacts on beneficial insects and on biodiversity in general.
Concerns over use of glyphosate-based herbicides and risks associated with exposures: a consensus statement

John Peterson Myers,Michael N. Antoniou,Bruce Blumberg,Lynn Carroll,Theo Colborn,Lorne G. Everett,Michael Hansen,Philip J. Landrigan,Bruce P. Lanphear,Robin Mesnage,Laura N. Vandenberg,Frederick S. vom Saal,Wade V. Welshons,Charles M. Benbrook

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-016-0117-0

2016-02-17

Environmental Health

Abstract:The broad-spectrum herbicide glyphosate (common trade name “Roundup”) was first sold to farmers in 1974. Since the late 1970s, the volume of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) applied has increased approximately 100-fold. Further increases in the volume applied are likely due to more and higher rates of application in response to the widespread emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds and new, pre-harvest, dessicant use patterns. GBHs were developed to replace or reduce reliance on herbicides causing well-documented problems associated with drift and crop damage, slipping efficacy, and human health risks. Initial industry toxicity testing suggested that GBHs posed relatively low risks to non-target species, including mammals, leading regulatory authorities worldwide to set high acceptable exposure limits. To accommodate changes in GBH use patterns associated with genetically engineered, herbicide-tolerant crops, regulators have dramatically increased tolerance levels in maize, oilseed (soybeans and canola), and alfalfa crops and related livestock feeds. Animal and epidemiology studies published in the last decade, however, point to the need for a fresh look at glyphosate toxicity. Furthermore, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer recently concluded that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” In response to changing GBH use patterns and advances in scientific understanding of their potential hazards, we have produced a Statement of Concern drawing on emerging science relevant to the safety of GBHs. Our Statement of Concern considers current published literature describing GBH uses, mechanisms of action, toxicity in laboratory animals, and epidemiological studies. It also examines the derivation of current human safety standards. We conclude that: (1) GBHs are the most heavily applied herbicide in the world and usage continues to rise; (2) Worldwide, GBHs often contaminate drinking water sources, precipitation, and air, especially in agricultural regions; (3) The half-life of glyphosate in water and soil is longer than previously recognized; (4) Glyphosate and its metabolites are widely present in the global soybean supply; (5) Human exposures to GBHs are rising; (6) Glyphosate is now authoritatively classified as a probable human carcinogen; (7) Regulatory estimates of tolerable daily intakes for glyphosate in the United States and European Union are based on outdated science. We offer a series of recommendations related to the need for new investments in epidemiological studies, biomonitoring, and toxicology studies that draw on the principles of endocrinology to determine whether the effects of GBHs are due to endocrine disrupting activities. We suggest that common commercial formulations of GBHs should be prioritized for inclusion in government-led toxicology testing programs such as the U.S. National Toxicology Program, as well as for biomonitoring as conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

environmental sciences,public, environmental & occupational health
Food Additives and Child Health

Leonardo Trasande,Rachel M. Shaffer,Sheela Sathyanarayana,Jennifer A. Lowry,Samantha Ahdoot,Carl R. Baum,Aaron S. Bernstein,Aparna Bole,Carla C. Campbell,Philip J. Landrigan,Susan E. Pacheco,Adam J. Spanier,Alan D. Woolf,,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-1410

2018-08-01

PEDIATRICS

Abstract:Increasing scientific evidence suggests potential adverse effects on children’s health from synthetic chemicals used as food additives, both those deliberately added to food during processing (direct) and those used in materials that may contaminate food as part of packaging or manufacturing (indirect). Concern regarding food additives has increased in the past 2 decades in part because of studies that increasingly document endocrine disruption and other adverse health effects. In some cases, exposure to these chemicals is disproportionate among minority and low-income populations. This report focuses on those food additives with the strongest scientific evidence for concern. Further research is needed to study effects of exposure over various points in the life course, and toxicity testing must be advanced to be able to better identify health concerns prior to widespread population exposure. The accompanying policy statement describes approaches policy makers and pediatricians can take to prevent the disease and disability that are increasingly being identified in relation to chemicals used as food additives, among other uses.

pediatrics
Twenty-eight years of GM Food and feed without harm: why not accept them?

Richard E. Goodman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2024.2305944

2024-03-14

GM crops & food

Abstract:Since the first genetically engineered or modified crops or organisms (GMO) were approved for commercial production in 1995, no new GMO has been proven to be a hazard or cause harm to human consumers. These modifications have improved crop efficiency, reduced losses to insect pests, reduced losses to viral and microbial plant pathogens and improved drought tolerance. A few have focused on nutritional improvements producing beta carotene in Golden Rice. Regulators in the United States and countries signing the CODEX Alimentarius and Cartagena Biosafety agreements have evaluated human and animal food safety considering potential risks of allergenicity, toxicity, nutritional and anti-nutritional risks. They consider risks for non-target organisms and the environment. There are no cases where post-market surveillance has uncovered harm to consumers or the environment including potential transfer of DNA from the GMO to non-target organisms. In fact, many GMOs have helped improve production, yield and reduced risks from chemical insecticides or fungicides. Yet there are generic calls to label foods containing any genetic modification as a GMO and refusing to allow GM events to be labeled as organic. Many African countries have accepted the Cartagena Protocol as a tool to keep GM events out of their countries while facing food insecurity. The rationale for those restrictions are not rational. Other issues related to genetic diversity, seed production and environmental safety must be addressed. What can be done to increase acceptance of safe and nutritious foods as the population increases, land for cultivation is reduced and energy costs soar?

biotechnology & applied microbiology,plant sciences
Extreme opponents of genetically modified foods know the least but think they know the most

Philip M. Fernbach,Nicholas Light,Sydney E. Scott,Yoel Inbar,Paul Rozin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0520-3

IF: 24.252

2019-01-14

Nature Human Behaviour

Abstract:There is widespread agreement among scientists that genetically modified foods are safe to consume1,2 and have the potential to provide substantial benefits to humankind3. However, many people still harbour concerns about them or oppose their use4,5. In a nationally representative sample of US adults, we find that as extremity of opposition to and concern about genetically modified foods increases, objective knowledge about science and genetics decreases, but perceived understanding of genetically modified foods increases. Extreme opponents know the least, but think they know the most. Moreover, the relationship between self-assessed and objective knowledge shifts from positive to negative at high levels of opposition. Similar results were obtained in a parallel study with representative samples from the United States, France and Germany, and in a study testing attitudes about a medical application of genetic engineering technology (gene therapy). This pattern did not emerge, however, for attitudes and beliefs about climate change.

psychology, experimental,neurosciences,multidisciplinary sciences
Tempest in a Tea Pot: How did the Public Conversation on Genetically Modified Crops Drift so far from the Facts?

Daniel A. Goldstein

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13181-014-0402-7

2014-05-06

Journal of Medical Toxicology

Abstract:The debate over genetically modified (GM) crops has raged in Europe since 1996, but had barely risen above a whisper in the USA until recent labeling debates raised public attention. This article will explain GM crops and traits discuss safety assessment provide a view on safety from authoritative organizations discuss selected issues of current debate, and provide the author’s perspective as to why the public debate has drifted so far from scientific reality. The economic and environmental benefits of GM crops are beyond scope, but references are provided. GM food and feed undergo comprehensive assessments using recognized approaches to assure they are as safe as the conventional congener. Issues of food safety and nutrition, unrelated to the GM process, may arise when GM foods display novel components or composition. Unanticipated genetic effects in GM crops appear to be limited in contrast to existing variations among conventional varieties resulting from breeding, mutation, and natural mobile genetic elements. Allergenic potential is assessed when selecting genes for introduction into GM crops and remains a theoretical risk to date. Emerging weed and insect resistance is not unique to GM technology and will require the use of integrated pest management/best practices for pest control. Gene flow from GM crops to wild relatives is limited by existing biological barriers but can at time be a relevant consideration in gene selection and planting practices. Insect-resistant GM crops have significantly reduced use of chemical insecticides and appear to have reduced the incidence of pesticide poisoning in areas where small scale farming and hand application are common. Changes in herbicide patterns are more complex and are evolving over time in response to weed resistance management needs. Recent public debate is driven by a combination of unfounded allegations about the technology and purveyors, pseudoscience, and attempts to apply a strict precautionary principle.

toxicology
Mission Impossible? Managing the American Academy of Pediatrics Obesity Guideline

Eleanor R Menzin,Menzin,E. R.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.3069

2024-03-26

The Annals of Family Medicine

Abstract:A primary care pediatrician casts a skeptical eye at the American Academy of Pediatrics Obesity Guideline. Using back-of-the-envelope calculations, she explains that meeting the guidelines would swamp her office, hospital, and the country's clinicians in a manner that is unrealistic. Warning against the alienation that boots-on-the-ground clinicians experience when guidelines are too theoretical to be practical, she suggests alternative avenues for addressing this public health issue.

medicine, general & internal,primary health care
National Pediatrician-Scientist Collaborative Workgroup comment on new ACGME requirements' impact on pediatric physician-scientists

Daniel J Moore,Weston Powell,Debra Boyer,Katherine Bline,Lyndsay Harshman,Andrew Nowalk,Audrea Burns,Jordan S Orange,NPSCW,Kara L Calkins,Emma Mohr,Bryce Binstadt,David Olson,Danielle Callaway,Kelly Harris,Jacquelyn D Lajiness,Mel Heyman,Audra Nicole Iness,Rebecca Blankenburg,Carrie Rassbach,Mark Allen Ward,Satid Thammasitboon,Tara Wenger,Catherine Forster,Suong Nguyen,Michael D Hogarty,Pnina Weiss,Ian Davis,Candace Gildner,Bobbi J Byrne,Anthony French,Fernando Gonzalez,Andrew J Nowalk,Briana Christophers,Jacqueline Ho,Rasheed Gbadegesin,Catherine S Forster,Kate G Ackerman,Stephanie D Davis,Valerie A Almenas,Lyndsay A Harshman,Misty Good,James Bayrer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-023-02795-9

Abstract:Background: The ACGME recently released its recommendation for updates to the program requirements for pediatrics. These updates proposed changes to allocation of resident clinical time and a greater emphasis on individualization. The potential impact of these changes on the training of physician-scientists is discussed. Methods: Discussion of the proposed changes was held within the members of the National Pediatrician-Scientist Collaborative Workgroup, a group that represents scientists, trainees, program directors, chairs, and physician-scientist educators at nearly 30 residency programs from across the US with a focus on understanding and developing optimal approaches to physician-scientist training. Consideration was given to the both the personal and institutional impact of the proposal for physician-scientist development. Results: Both threats and opportunities were identified. Key opportunities include the enhanced individualized training time that could be used to explore research. Threats include re-allocation of clinical training time that may strain institutions financially, expand clinical service requirements for other early career stage individuals, and alter exposure to a broad range of pediatric specialists and sub-specialists that impact career development. Conclusion: The NPSCW encourages consideration of the impact of changing program requirements on physician-scientist development to include ongoing discussion amongst mentors, programs, and trainees to understand and mitigate impact of new program requirements on the development of pediatrician-scientists.
Pediatric advocacy: Advancement in academic institutions

Sara M. Bode,Eimaan Anwar,Debra L. Best,Mona Patel,Lee S. Beers,Jeffrey M. Kaczorowski,Barry S. Solomon,Lisa J. Chamberlain

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-023-02997-1

IF: 3.953

2024-01-10

Pediatric Research

Abstract:Children are facing many threats to their health today that require system change at a sweeping level to have real-world impact.

pediatrics
[Genetically modified organisms: a new threat to food safety]

Liliane Spendeler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/s1135-57272005000200013

Abstract:This article analyzes all of the food safety-related aspects related to the use of genetically modified organisms into agriculture and food. A discussion is provided as to the uncertainties related to the insertion of foreign genes into organisms, providing examples of unforeseen, undesirable effects and of instabilities of the organisms thus artificially fabricated. Data is then provided from both official agencies as well as existing literature questioning the accuracy and reliability of the risk analyses as to these organisms being harmless to health and discusses the almost total lack of scientific studies analyzing the health safety/dangerousness of transgenic foods. Given all these unknowns, other factors must be taken into account, particularly genetic contamination of the non-genetically modified crops, which is now starting to become widespread in some parts of the world. Not being able of reversing the situation in the even of problems is irresponsible. Other major aspects are the impacts on the environment (such as insects building up resistances, the loss of biodiversity, the increase in chemical products employed) with indirect repercussions on health and/or future food production. Lastly, thoughts for discussion are added concerning food safety in terms of food availability and food sovereignty, given that the transgenic seed and related agrochemicals market is currently cornered by five large-scale transnational companies. The conclusion entails an analysis of biotechnological agriculture's contribution to sustainability.
Untangling the Debate Over Genetically Modified Foods

J. Sax

2014-08-05

Abstract:For about 30 years, Genetically Modified (GM) foods have been in the food supply chain – either as feed for animals or directly consumed by humans. To date, there is no evidence of safety issues associated with the ingestion of GM foods; yet, GM plants are highly controversial for a variety of reasons.The techniques to create GM food vary. Older, or more established techniques, include the introduction of a gene into the DNA of the plant. The exogenous gene may encode a protein to allow the plant to be, for example, pest resistant. Newer technologies are based on advances in molecular biology. For example, companies are experimenting with RNAi to silence genes/proteins produced in insects, thus killing the insect. The techniques discovered in molecular biology can be applied to the creation of new GM food strands.The peer-reviewed scientific literature is clear that the GM foods on the market are safe for consumption. This doesn't mean the analysis of GM foods should end; rather, it should focus on environmental and health (not safety) issues; such as, how do we implement GM crops in an environmentally friendly way.Too much emphasis and controversy focuses on non-issues with GM foods, such as safety, while other real issues, such as farming techniques, are being ignored. This article will clear-up the non-issues and address the pressing issues.

Engineering,Environmental Science,Agricultural and Food Sciences
Advertising Unhealthy Food to Children: on the Importance of Regulations, Parenting Styles, and Media Literacy

Brigitte Naderer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40429-020-00348-2

2020-11-21

Current Addiction Reports

Abstract:Abstract Purpose of Review Childhood obesity is a global health concern. And a number of studies have indicated that food promotions affect children’s food attitudes, preferences, and food choices for foods high in fat and sugar, which potentially impacts children’s body weight development. This review showcases how children are affected by food promotions, why companies even target children with their promotional efforts, and what makes children so susceptible to promotion of unhealthy food. In addition, this review discusses how regulations, parental styles, and individual media literacy skills can help to contain the potential detrimental effects of food promotions on children’s health. Recent Findings The recent findings indicate that children are affected by food promotions in their preference for unhealthy food and beverages in selection tasks shortly conducted after exposure. Furthermore, results indicate significant effects of food marketing, including enhanced attitudes, preferences, and increased consumption of marketed (predominantly unhealthy) foods connected with a wide range of marketing strategies. Children are particularly vulnerable to promotional efforts and react to it strongly due to their still developing cognitive and social skills as well as their lack in inhibitory control. Summary This review proposes an applied focus that discusses pathways for regulators, parents, and educators. In the light of the discussed results, a large number of studies on food promotion indicate that there is need to react. In all these measures, however, it is of relevance to consider children’s developmental stages to effectively counteract and respond to the potential detrimental effects of food promotions on children’s long-term weight development.
Promoting Child Health by Protecting the Patient-Clinician Relationship From Politics

Aaron M. Milstone,Alison A. Galbraith,Susan L. Rosenthal,Jay Griffin Berry,Thomas F. Boat,John V. Campo,Ellen Wright Clayton,Jason S. Debley,Andrea F. Duncan,Leonard H. Epstein,Alexander G. Fiks,Elena Fuentes-Afflick,Jill S. Halterman,Renee M. Johnson,Amaris M. Keiser,Ron Keren,Tracy A. Lieu,Megan A. Moreno,Debra L. Palazzi,Shawn J. Rangel,Martha C. Sola-Visner,Lindsay A. Thompson,Maria Trent,John M. VanBuren,Julie T. Vo,Dimitri A. Christakis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.2663

2024-10-08

JAMA Pediatrics

Abstract:As child health clinicians and researchers, and as editors and editorial board members of JAMA Pediatrics, we care deeply about the well-being of all children and adolescents. Children thrive in safe, supportive, and healthy environments, supported by parents who seek input, insight, and care from their child's pediatrician or health care professional. Over decades, child health has advanced through scientific discovery (eg, new and improved vaccines) and the implementation of scientifically informed policies (eg, car seat and seat belt laws) and advocacy efforts (back-to-sleep campaigns). Unfortunately, we are witnessing a reversal of some significant gains, including increases in pediatric mortality, particularly from homicide and suicide, and worsening mental health and well-being indicators. Contemporary pediatric and adolescent health challenges include increased risks of vaccine-preventable diseases, firearm injury, and limited access to gender-affirming and reproductive health care. For pediatricians, it has become more challenging to address child and adolescent health needs due to the increasing politicization of medicine and public health. Politics can disrupt the relationship between pediatric health care professionals and patients and families, making it difficult to create informed consumers of care and help patients and families make important health decisions. Because we strongly believe children should not be caught in a political cross-fire, we must call attention to the importance of evidence-based practice and respect for patient and family preferences and shared decision-making in pediatric settings.

pediatrics
COVID-19 pediatric vaccine authorization, FDA authority, and individual misperception of risk

Joanna K Sax,Neal Doran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsae006

IF: 3.4

2024-01-01

Journal of Law and the Biosciences

Abstract:Abstract Vaccines are one component to the public health strategies to alleviate the COVID-19 pandemic. Hesitancy regarding COVID-19 vaccines in the United States has been problematic, which is not surprising given increasing overall vaccine hesitancy in recent decades. Most vaccines are administered during childhood years. Consequently, understanding hesitancy toward administration of vaccines in this age group may provide insight into possible interventions to reduce vaccine hesitancy. The present study analyzed a subset of over 130,000 public comments posted in response to a notice of meeting of the vaccine advisory group to the Food and Drug Administration. The meeting addressed whether to recommend Emergency Use Authorization (‘EUA’) of the COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 5–11. The results of the study demonstrate that most comments opposed EUA and these comments were associated with statements that indicated misperceptions of risk. Findings provide interesting insights regarding the role of public comments generally but also suggest that the public participation process in notice and comment can be modified to serve as an intervention to align individual perceptions of risk more closely with evidence-based assessment of risk. In addition, the findings provide opportunities to consider strategies for public health messaging.

ethics,law,medicine, legal,medical ethics
Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition to Genetically Modified Food in the United States

Sydney E. Scott,Yoel Inbar,Paul Rozin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615621275

2016-05-01

Perspectives on Psychological Science

Abstract:Public opposition to genetic modification (GM) technology in the food domain is widespread (Frewer et al., 2013). In a survey of U.S. residents representative of the population on gender, age, and income, 64% opposed GM, and 71% of GM opponents (45% of the entire sample) were “absolutely” opposed—that is, they agreed that GM should be prohibited no matter the risks and benefits. “Absolutist” opponents were more disgust sensitive in general and more disgusted by the consumption of genetically modified food than were non-absolutist opponents or supporters. Furthermore, disgust predicted support for legal restrictions on genetically modified foods, even after controlling for explicit risk–benefit assessments. This research suggests that many opponents are evidence insensitive and will not be influenced by arguments about risks and benefits.

psychology, multidisciplinary

Pediatrics academy faces pushback on GMO advice

Use of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO)-Containing Food Products in Children

Children and Genetically Engineered Food: Potentials and Problems

Microbiome interventions for children raise the ethical stakes

Selling before telling: why the government needs to take a second look at genetically engineered foods

New Obesity Guidance for Pediatrics: Medicalizing Obesity or Acquiescing to Our Obesogenic Culture?

[The critical scientists' voice]

Concerns over use of glyphosate-based herbicides and risks associated with exposures: a consensus statement

Food Additives and Child Health

Twenty-eight years of GM Food and feed without harm: why not accept them?

Extreme opponents of genetically modified foods know the least but think they know the most

Tempest in a Tea Pot: How did the Public Conversation on Genetically Modified Crops Drift so far from the Facts?

Mission Impossible? Managing the American Academy of Pediatrics Obesity Guideline

National Pediatrician-Scientist Collaborative Workgroup comment on new ACGME requirements' impact on pediatric physician-scientists

Pediatric advocacy: Advancement in academic institutions

[Genetically modified organisms: a new threat to food safety]

Untangling the Debate Over Genetically Modified Foods

Advertising Unhealthy Food to Children: on the Importance of Regulations, Parenting Styles, and Media Literacy

Promoting Child Health by Protecting the Patient-Clinician Relationship From Politics

COVID-19 pediatric vaccine authorization, FDA authority, and individual misperception of risk

Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition to Genetically Modified Food in the United States