The pathology of hype, hyperbole and publication bias is creating an unwarranted concern towards biodegradable mulch films.

The idea that it is a risk to promote biodegradable mulch films on a large scale is becoming established at academic level based on a series of articles similar in approach and conclusions. However, a critical analysis shows that the results do not justify the alarmist tones. The negative effects of hand-cut pieces of virgin material added in pots at concentrations up to 714 times the application doses are ascribed to the "accumulation" and "contamination" of "residues" and "debris" of biodegradable plastics. Yet, no accumulation and no contamination of biodegradable microplastics has actually been shown. No Predicted Environmental Concentration was established, thus the use of the term risk is inappropriate. The hypothesis of transient phytotoxicity of organic matter under decomposition i.e., an artificial outcome of the experimental scheme used, was not considered. A scrupulous approach to terminology is very important for the quality of communication and for the development of innovations. Scientific communication is a delicate process in which and to avoid hyperbole, there must be strict logical and lexical consistency between results and conclusions. Guidelines on the communication of the results of studies on biodegradable mulch must be developed to avoid the spread of unjustified concerns.