3 ms·

Think the people putting their names to this peer review should be noted: EDITED BY Christophe Darnault Clemson University, United States REV

Think the people putting their names to this peer review should be noted: EDITED BY Christophe Darnault Clemson University, United States REVIEWED BY Roberta Fulthorpe University of Toronto Scarborough, Canada Alan Kolok University of Idaho, United States Kean Goh California Department of Pesticide Regulation, United States Do you plan to write a rebuttal to the journal and those who oversaw it at any point? Or just post here?

sampo 5y ago
I think the literature review article in Frontiers in Environmental Science is pretty honest at being what it is. They do literature searches and take notes on the presence and potential of a hazard. It's not a risk analysis, and it's not quantitative, and it doesn't pretend to be. They conclude (end of Abstract): > The prevalence of negative effects in our results underscores the need for soil organisms to be represented in any risk analysis of a pesticide that has the potential to contaminate soil, and for any significant risk to be mitigated in a way that will specifically reduce harm to soil organisms and to the many important ecosystem services they provide. and (end of Conclusions): > This review presents extensive evidence that pesticides pose a serious threat to soil invertebrates and the essential ecosystem services that they provide. Given the widespread and increasing adoption of seed and soil applied pesticides that pose a particular threat to soil organisms, we strongly support the inclusion of a soil health analysis in the United States pesticide risk assessment process. And I think there is some distance from these to "Pesticides Are Killing the World’s Soils". But I don't know how much should it concern the editors or Frontiers in Environmental Science, if same people first publish in their journal, and then go on to write something different in a popular science magazine (Scientific American)?

sampo 5y ago

I think the literature review article in Frontiers in Environmental Science is pretty honest at being what it is. They do literature searches and take notes on the presence and potential of a hazard. It's not a risk analysis, and it's not quantitative, and it doesn't pretend to be. They conclude (end of Abstract): > The prevalence of negative effects in our results underscores the need for soil organisms to be represented in any risk analysis of a pesticide that has the potential to contaminate soil, and for any significant risk to be mitigated in a way that will specifically reduce harm to soil organisms and to the many important ecosystem services they provide. and (end of Conclusions): > This review presents extensive evidence that pesticides pose a serious threat to soil invertebrates and the essential ecosystem services that they provide. Given the widespread and increasing adoption of seed and soil applied pesticides that pose a particular threat to soil organisms, we strongly support the inclusion of a soil health analysis in the United States pesticide risk assessment process. And I think there is some distance from these to "Pesticides Are Killing the World’s Soils". But I don't know how much should it concern the editors or Frontiers in Environmental Science, if same people first publish in their journal, and then go on to write something different in a popular science magazine (Scientific American)?