Being able and knowing when to exercise scrutiny toward claims is part of the scientific method. Mycorrhiza products exist first and foremost to make money above and beyond the cost of advertising and actually making the stuff — any actual benefit to gardeners is secondary and incidental. The incentives surrounding the marketing and consumption of mycorrhizae are fundamentally economic, not agricultural.  

Introducing foreign organisms to an ecosystem tends toward disruption of homeostasis. While on a long enough timeline there will be some establishment of a equilibrium, the conditions of systemic stabilization can be unpredictable and so potentially damaging or even devastating from the perspective of some or other species caught up in the flux.

Concerns about disrupting the soil ecology through adding non local fungi are similar to concerns over invasive species, which do have various destructive effects on ecosystems. By destructive I mean systemic changes that at some point occur at rate greater than system can countermand without outside intervention, if it is possible at all. There are entire landscapes in the desert southwest that have been altered by invasive species, which has altered the migratory patterns of birds, increased flashfire risk, and on and on. These are risks and dangers that the people who introduced these organisms did not consider. 

Being suspicious and asking questions to probe unknowns is basic risk management and not being concerned with these unknowns is irresponsible.

Concerns over commercial mychoraze outcompeting native fungi are completely justified. Labeling a claim as “pseudoscience” is not, I will tell you, actually a rhetorical broadsword to cut-through positions. It doesn’t diminish the validity of the suspicion.  

The questions you ask are some that the manufacturers of these products should have been required to answer before selling them.

So, we jeopardize the system by waiting for results and things get worse by not doing anything? I’m not using scientific jargon because I’m not familiar with it in this article. I am speaking in general about all things. Your point about large corporations getting their plans passed proves the author’s point of getting help, at least proposing for legislation, in supporting the little guy.

Uh, this was part of her point: let’s find out if it is damaging BEFORE we have a problem that is no longer controllable. Legislation is one of the few ways available to try to control people’s ignorance and greed to give scientists time to analyze the efficacy.

I am not a scientist and I wager you are not either by your reaction. It is okay to digest and ponder what her opinion is and then support what might be most accurate and helpful. We need to work together for positive results!