Why Peer-Review is Important

Posted on

Joe Rogain, heir to the hair-growing-chemical fortune, promoted “scientific research” funded by a group called “Moms Across America” indicating that Girl Scout cookies contain heavy metals and toxins:

“100% of the cookies tested contained aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury and that 13 cookies were positive for high levels of glyphosate” (a herbicide).” (source)

“The study wasn’t published in a scientific journal, was not peer-reviewed and used a small sample size.… It also compared heavy metals and glyphosate levels not to U.S. Food and Drug Administration food safety standards, but rather to water safety limits set by the Environmental Protection Agency, which aren’t applicable to food.” (source)

“”a 66 lb. child would need to consume approximately 9,000 cookies daily to approach the EPA’s chronic reference dose.” (source)

It was not peer-reviewed. Why does that matter?

Is the research wrong? No.

But all cookies contain similar toxins, even homemade cookies made with commercial ingredients. It’s part of modern agriculture. Actually, it’s likely that 99% of the food you can buy have similar toxins at similar levels in them.

Peer review would have required the authors of the study to compare the measured amounts to regulations on food (and not water). Also, to indicate that all cookies and almost all food products have these kinds of toxins.  Government regulations are set at amounts that other research has shown has a low-enough risk. Producers don’t work to go below those amounts.

  • This is where risk assessment comes in (one of our chapters)

So why the Girl Scouts? This is how you weaponize “scientific research.” And what peer-review is meant to undermine. 

Some possible reasons to target the Girl Scouts:

1. Targeting a Well-Known, High-Profile Brand for Maximum Publicity

• Girl Scout cookies are iconic and widely consumed, especially by children, making them an easy target for fear-based activism.

• The annual cookie sales generate massive public attention, giving MAA a prime opportunity to insert itself into a national conversation.

2. Tapping into Conservative Distrust of Girl Scouts

• While MAA presents itself as non-partisan, its concerns (anti-GMO, anti-corporate food production) often align with right-wing populist themes.

• Many conservative groups have long had issues with Girl Scouts’ progressive stances—on LGBTQ+ inclusion, feminism, and partnerships with organizations like Planned Parenthood.

• The Boy Scouts split over LGBTQ+ inclusion and the rise of alternative conservative scouting groups (like Trail Life USA) suggest a culture war element at play.

• Conservative commentators and activists have, in the past, encouraged boycotts of Girl Scout cookies for ideological reasons.

3. Discrediting “Big Food” While Avoiding Direct Fights with Major Corporations

• If MAA attacked Nabisco (Oreos) or Nestlé, they would face legal and PR pushback from powerful corporate entities.

• Girl Scouts, as a non-profit, are an easier target—they lack the resources to fight back effectively while still having name recognition.

• This allows MAA to spread fear about food safety in a way that is harder to debunk, since Girl Scouts rely on outsourced production.

4. Playing to an Audience That Responds to “Toxic Kids’ Foods” Messaging

• Fear of “hidden toxins in children’s foods” is a hallmark of pseudoscientific health activism, much like past panics over vaccines, GMOs, and artificial sweeteners.

• The framing of this campaign—“poison in children’s cookies!”—is classic fearmongering, designed to appeal to parents who distrust the food industry and government regulations.

5. Opportunism and Fundraising

• Advocacy groups like MAA thrive on viral fear campaigns, which drive donations and media attention.

• A lawsuit against Girl Scouts (even if it fails) boosts their credibility among their followers as “fighting the system” and can be used for future fundraising.