Madison Area Lyme Support Group

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) hasn’t updated its parental guidance on cellphone radiation since 2016, even though studies published in recent years highlight the dangers of exposure in children.

A link on the group’s wireless radiation webpage lists telecommunications company AT&T as one of its corporate sponsors.

The AAP, which represents 67,000 pediatricians in the U.S., says its mission is to “attain optimal physical, mental, and social health and well-being for all infants, children, adolescents and young adults.”

The group runs a parenting advice website — HealthyChildren.org — which includes a page on cellphone radiation. Five corporations sponsor the site, including AT&T, Vicks and pharmaceutical companies Regeneron, Sanofi and Genentech.

“It appears the website’s financial support may be influencing its content,” said Miriam Eckenfels, director of Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) Electromagnetic Radiation & Wireless Program.

The AAP’s parenting website advertises a “free” webinar for parents on how immunizations for RSV, or respiratory syncytial virus, can keep their babies “safe.” Sanofi, which sells an RSV shot, is sponsoring the event.

“Meanwhile, the AAP hasn’t bothered updating its cellphone radiation advice to parents in over nine years — despite the rapid proliferation of cellphones and other ‘smart’ devices in kids’ environments,” Eckenfels said.

She added:

“Examples of industry supporting the AAP are common, and we are wary of any attempt to capture not just government agencies but also professional organizations.

“We need to ensure, through education and advocacy, that the financial incentives don’t impact their recommendations — and push back as soon as they do.”

AAP’s cellphone radiation page says ‘latest research’ is from 2016

The AAP’s “Cell Phone Radiation & Children’s Health: What Parents Need to Know” page was last updated on June 13, 2016.

The page reports on what it calls the “latest research” by citing partial findings from the 2016 National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) two-year study on cellphone radiation, which showed that rats exposed to cellphone radiation had an increased risk of cancer.

The webpage says “parents should not panic” and notes that the study focused on rats, not people. “We do not yet know if the same results would occur in people,” according to the webpage. “The analysis of all of the data from this study is not yet complete,” the webpage states.

The NTP published the study’s full findings in 2018.

“Why did the AAP not update its webpage in 2018, once the NTP completed the study and found ‘clear evidence’ of increased cancer risk?” Eckenfels asked.

Numerous other studies published since 2016 underscore the health risks of cellphone radiation.

In 2018, Italy’s Ramazzini Institute also found evidence of cancer in rats exposed to cellphone radiation.

Earlier this year, a systematic review commissioned by the World Health Organization concluded there is “high certainty” evidence that cellphone radiation exposure causes two types of cancer in animals.

The AAP’s cellphone radiation webpage calls for more research, despite failing to update its content with current studies.

It also includes “safety tips” for parents to help their children avoid “unnecessary radiation exposure,” such as limiting children’s cellphone use and downloading movies to watch with the device set to airplane mode.

“But note that AAP isn’t offering a free parent webinar to get these tips out to the public,” Eckenfels said. “Instead, they are buried on a neglected webpage.”

The AAP did not respond when asked why it hasn’t updated its cellphone radiation webpage for parents. Neither the AAP nor AT&T responded when asked how much money AT&T has contributed to the parenting website and for how long.

AAP supports ‘review of radiation standards,’ but will it take action?

The webpage points out that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which sets the regulatory limit for cellphone radiation, hasn’t reviewed its standards since 1996.

The page also acknowledges that it’s a “problem” that the FCC’s cellphone radiation test assumes the cellphone user is an adult, not a child. “Children’s skulls are thinner and can absorb more radiation,” the page states.

The AAP appears committed to advocating for the FCC to review its limits, stating:

“The AAP supports the review of radiation standards for cell phones in an effort to protect children’s health, reflect current cell phone use patterns, and provide meaningful consumer disclosure.”

In 2021, CHD earned a “historic win” against the FCC, challenging the agency’s decision not to review its 1996 health and safety guidelines for wireless-based technologies.

However, the FCC has yet to comply with the court mandate to explain how its radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines adequately protect humans from harm.

The majority opinion said the agency must also:

“(ii) address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation, the ubiquity of wireless devices, and other technological developments that have occurred since the Commission last updated its guidelines, and (iii) address the impacts of RF radiation on the environment.”

The petitioners in the case filed 11,000 pages of evidence of harm from 5G and wireless technology, including evidence of existing widespread sickness.

In April 2023, CHD petitioned the FCC to “quit stalling” and comply with the court-ordered mandate. The agency still shows no sign of complying, Eckenfels said.

The AAP did not respond when asked if it planned to petition the FCC to comply with a 2021 court mandate.

Related articles in The Defender

• ‘High Certainty’ Cellphone Radiation Linked to Cancer in Animals, WHO Study Finds
• FCC Defies Court Mandate, Delays Review of Cellphone Radiation Guidelines
• CHD Petitions FCC to ‘Quit Stalling’ on Court Order to Address Harmful Effects of Wireless Radiation
• FCC Limits for Wireless Radiation Exposure Decades Out of Date, Experts Say
• Why Did Government Shut Down Cellphone Radiation Studies? Email Trail Leads to More Questions Than Answers