Girl Scouts hit with lawsuit after toxic contaminants study goes viral
The Brief
A lawsuit claims Girl Scout cookies contain heavy metals and pesticides.
The study behind the lawsuit was not peer-reviewed or published in a scientific journal.
The Girl Scouts have previously denied wrongdoing, emphasizing customer safety.
ATLANTA - As Girl Scout troops nationwide celebrate National Girl Scout Day, the organization faces a lawsuit alleging that its beloved cookies contain dangerous substances. The legal battle stems from a controversial study that went viral online, sparking debate over food safety and industry regulations.
What we know
A New York woman has filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against the Girl Scouts of America, claiming that their cookies contain heavy metals and pesticides, according to USA Today.
The lawsuit is based on a study commissioned by Moms Across America and GMO Science, which found aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury in 100% of the tested cookies.
Additionally, thirteen of the tested cookies allegedly contained high levels of glyphosate, a commonly used herbicide. The lawsuit seeks millions of dollars in damages and accuses the Girl Scouts of making false claims about the safety and quality of their cookies.
What we don't know
Despite the alarming claims, the study's reliability remains in question. It was neither peer-reviewed nor published in a scientific journal, and its findings were based on a limited sample, with cookies tested from only three states. These factors raise concerns about whether the study meets scientific standards, according to Forbes.
Furthermore, the study compared the substances found in the cookies to water safety limits set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rather than food safety standards established by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
The backstory
The controversy gained momentum after the study's findings went viral on social media. The issue was further amplified when popular podcaster Joe Rogan discussed it, leading to widespread misinformation, including false claims that the FDA had issued a recall of Girl Scout cookies.
By the numbers
The study reported that 100% of the tested cookies contained at least one of the five heavy metals mentioned in the lawsuit, and thirteen cookies tested positive for high levels of glyphosate.
The study claimed that the popular Thin Mints samples contained 334 times more glyphosate than recommended and 19 cookies were positive for cadmium levels that exceeded levels set by the EPA.
It also claimed that 24 out of 25 of the samples tested positive for lead and 76% were positive for levels of cadmium that exceed EPA limits in water.
The other side
Trace amounts of all the substances found in the Girl Scout cookies are also found in many everyday foods.
Glyphosate is commonly present in fresh fruits, vegetables, cereals, and baked goods.
Lead can be found in various spices such as curry powder, turmeric, and paprika, as well as in baby food, apple juice, and certain vegetables.
Mercury is often detected in fish, shellfish, rice, and wine. Arsenic naturally occurs in mushrooms, poultry, seafood, and rice, while aluminum is found in tea leaves, cocoa, cereals, vegetables, dairy, and soy products.
Click here for current federal regulations.
The Girl Scouts have not yet responded to the lawsuit itself, but they previously addressed concerns in a Feb. 6 blog post, stating, "The health and safety of Girl Scouts and cookie customers is our top priority."
Big picture view
This lawsuit against the Girl Scouts highlights growing concerns about food safety and transparency. While trace amounts of heavy metals and pesticides exist in many common foods, the legal battle raises questions about industry regulations and consumer trust. Regardless of the outcome, the case could set a precedent for future food safety lawsuits and increased regulatory scrutiny.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
3 hours ago
- Washington Post
EPA just delayed reporting safety data on 16 toxic chemicals. Here's what to know.
The Environmental Protection Agency announced this week that it will push back the deadline for reporting unpublished health and safety data for 16 toxic chemicals — some of which are linked to cancer or developmental problems in babies — used in everyday products and manufacturing. The move signals a shift from the Biden administration's approach to regulating harmful chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a sweeping law aimed at protecting public health.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Nah, we changed our minds: EPA restores $1.6M UMaine PFAS grant
Jun. 11—The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has reinstated a $1.6 million grant to the University of Maine to research and reduce the effect of forever chemicals on farms one month after canceling it for being inconsistent with EPA funding priorities. In May, EPA spokesman Mike Bastasch justified the grant withdrawal like this: "Maybe the Biden-Harris administration shouldn't have forced their radical agenda of wasteful DEI programs and 'environmental justice' preferencing on the EPA." UMaine filed an appeal for wrongful grant termination on June 5. A day later, the EPA informed UMaine that it had reversed its position, and insisted that agency leaders had made that decision on June 4, the day before UMaine's appeal. The EPA gave no reason for its reversal. But a week before it canceled the grant, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin told Maine Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-1st District, during a committee hearing that these PFAS grants were important and implied they would continue after the agency reorganized under the Trump administration. The EPA did not respond to questions about the grant reinstatement or the status of two other grants worth more than $3 million for other forever chemical research in Maine, ranging from developing rapid field testing to testing forever chemical levels in Wabanaki tribal waters and fish. Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, are manmade chemicals found in a broad range of common household products, like nonstick pans and makeup, that pose a public health risk to humans through prolonged exposure. Even trace amounts of some PFAS can be dangerous to humans, with exposure to high levels of certain PFAS linked to serious health problems such as increased high blood pressure in pregnant women, developmental delays in children and increased risk of some cancers. Researchers involved in Mi'kmaq Nation and Passamaquoddy grants were happy to hear UMaine's grant had been restored and were hopeful their appeals would lead to reinstatement of their awards, too. As of Wednesday, however, their grants remained canceled. There is $1.45 million remaining on the restored award for UMaine to deliver "practical, science-based solutions" to reduce forever chemical contamination in livestock to produce safer food, a stronger farm economy and a healthier nation, according to a university statement. The grant also funds hands-on research learning for at least 10 students as part of UMaine's mission to produce the next generation of agricultural problem solvers and take a lead role in the new field of researching and reducing the effects of forever chemicals on agriculture. The EPA award will complement UMaine's new $500,000 state grant to research how forever chemicals move from soil into plants and livestock and eventually into the people who consume milk and dairy products. Both projects are led by UMaine professor Ellen Mallory. As of Monday, the University of Maine System has had 16 awards restored that the federal government had previously terminated, mostly at UMaine, according to a university spokeswoman. The current balance remaining on those reversed awards is $3.5 million. Over the last decade, Maine has spent more than $100 million as it became a national leader in the fight against harmful forever chemicals left behind by the state-permitted spreading of tainted sewage sludge on farm fields as a fertilizer. State inspectors have identified 82 Maine farms and 500 residential properties contaminated by the harmful forever chemicals in the sludge during a $28.8 million investigation of 1,100 sites. The state projects that it will install 660 water filtration systems at private wells near sludge-spread fields. So far, 20% of wells tested during the sludge investigation have exceeded Maine's drinking water standard. The Biden administration announced a stricter federal standard last year, but the Trump administration recently announced it planned to relax those standards and delay enactment. Copy the Story Link
Associated Press
14 hours ago
- Associated Press
EPA says power plant carbon emissions aren't dangerous. We asked 30 scientists: Here's what they say
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration's Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday proposed a new ruling that heat-trapping carbon gas 'emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants do not contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution.'' The Associated Press asked 30 different scientists, experts in climate, health and economics, about the scientific reality behind this proposal. Nineteen of them responded, all saying that the proposal was scientifically wrong and many of them called it disinformation. Here's what eight of them said. 'This is the scientific equivalent to saying that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer,' said climate scientist Zeke Hausfather of the tech firm Stripe and the temperature monitoring group Berkeley Earth. 'The relationship between CO2 emissions and global temperatures has been well established since the late 1800s, and coal burning is the single biggest driver of global CO2 emissions, followed by oil and gas. It is utterly nonsensical to say that carbon emissions from power plants do not contribute significantly to climate change.' 'It's about as valid as saying that arsenic is not a dangerous substance to consume,' said University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann. 'The world is round, the sun rises in the east, coal-and gas-fired power plants contribute significantly to climate change, and climate change increases the risk of heat waves, catastrophic storms, infectious diseases, and many other health threats. These are indisputable facts,' said Dr. Howard Frumkin, former director of the National Center for Environmental Health and a retired public health professor at the University of Washington. Climate economist R. Daniel Bressler of Columbia University, said: 'We can use tools from climate economics, including the mortality cost of carbon and the social cost of carbon, to estimate the climate impacts of these emissions. For instance, in my past work, I found that adding just one year's worth of emissions from an average-sized coal-fired plant in the U.S. causes 904 expected temperature-related deaths and over $1 billion in total climate damages.' University of Arizona climate scientist Kathy Jacobs said: 'Their statement is in direct conflict with evidence that has been presented by thousands of scientists from almost 200 countries for decades. 'It's basic chemistry that burning coal and natural gas releases carbon dioxide and it's basic physics that CO2 warms the planet. We've known these simple facts since the mid-19th century,' said Oregon State's Phil Mote. Andrew Weaver, a professor at the University of Victoria and former member of parliament in British Columbia, said: 'President Trump is setting himself up for international court charges against him for crimes against humanity. To proclaim you don't want to deal with climate change is one thing, but denying the basic science can only be taken as a wanton betrayal of future generations for which there should be consequences.' Stanford climate scientist Chris Field, who coordinated an international report linking climate change to increasingly deadly extreme weather, summed it up this way: 'It is hard to imagine a decision dumber than putting the short-term interests of oil and gas companies ahead of the long-term inters of our children and grandchildren.' ___ Matthew Daly and Michael Phillis contributed from Washington. The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
