0
Letter ? AI-assigned paper type based on the abstract. Classification may not be perfect — flag errors using the feedback button. Tier 3 ? Commentary, letter, editorial, or conference abstract. Useful context, not primary evidence. Sign in to save

Rebuttal of the arguments put forward in the Letter to the Editor by Nizzetto et al.

Journal of hazardous materials 2024
Francesco Degli-Innocenti

Summary

This is a rebuttal letter defending a prior article arguing that concerns about biodegradable plastic mulch films were overstated based on preliminary data. The author addresses accusations of scientific misconduct by identifying logical fallacies, including the straw man and ad hominem fallacies, in the critics' arguments.

In their Letter to the Editor, Nizzetto et al. challange a recent article in which I show that there has been unwarranted alarmism about biodegradable mulch films due to the publication of numerous articles based on preliminary data that are irrelevant for drawing conclusions on environmental risk. The tendency to over-emphasise results in order to attract attention is a growing problem in the scientific world and has been studied by many scholars. Nizzetto et al. accuse me of not using scientific methodology and of not disclosing that I am a scientist working for a company that produces biodegradable plastics. In this rebuttal I show that Nizzetto et al.'s accusations suffer from a number of logical fallacies, in particular the "straw man" fallacy and the "ad hominem" fallacy.

Share this paper