A Reply to “Comment on ‘An Analysis of Glyphosate Data from the California Environmental Protection Agency Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program’ ”

To the Editor:

We appreciate Dr. Mehler's [1] comments. Our goal was to analyze the publicly available California Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program (PISP) data regarding glyphosate, which are often cited in public discussions of glyphosate safety. We therefore requested the complete data relevant to glyphosate. As Dr. Mehler indicates, the PISP database does classify some reports as unrelated to exposure or as having insufficient information to determine causation. Information on those cases was not provided in response to our inquiry. However, cases judged unrelated to exposure would not affect our evaluation of the available PISP findings for glyphosate, and cases for which information is inadequate for the assessment of causation are similarly unlikely to be consequential.

We understand that follow‐up efforts are made at the county level to document exposures and further evaluate medical issues. The extent of follow‐up varies according to circumstances, as discussed in the annual PISP reports and is probably most comprehensive for the few reported fatalities. Information on follow‐up was not provided in the data we received, and we cannot judge how routinely and completely this information is reflected in the PISP database. For the purposes of our analysis, we accepted the PISP data as complete and accurate. Therefore, this issue would also be inconsequential to our analysis and conclusions.