Carsten A. Brühl
Johann G. Zaller- 1Community Ecology and Ecotoxicology, iES Landau, Institute for Environmental Sciences, University of Koblenz-Landau, Landau, Germany
- 2Department of Integrative Biology and Biodiversity Research, Institute of Zoology, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Vienna, Austria
The widespread contamination of ecosystems with plant protection products (pesticides in this text) around the world is evident (Hoferkamp et al., 2010; Shunthirasingham et al., 2011; Stehle and Schulz, 2015a; Ferrario et al., 2017; Hvězdová et al., 2018; Silva et al., 2019). Pesticide effects on the physiology, activity and diversity of various aquatic and terrestrial non-target organisms is addressed by numerous studies, and many new aspects are also described in a recent Frontiers Research Topic.
We currently observe a deterioration of biodiversity in agricultural landscapes, and the dramatic losses are increasingly discussed by the public (European Commission, 2018a). Declines of insect biomass of more than 70% in the last few decades in Germany, the halving of farmland bird populations in Europe and effects on pollinators are widely known (Donald et al., 2001; Potts et al., 2010; Hallmann et al., 2017). Out of a set of recorded parameters of agricultural intensification (such as field size, fertilizer application, landscape heterogeneity) a unique, pan-European study identified pesticide application as the responsible factor for lower biodiversity of plants, ground beetles, and birds in wheat fields (Geiger et al., 2010). Recently, a review recognized chemical pollution including pesticides as the second most important driver for the worldwide decline in insect populations (Sánchez-Bayo and Wyckhuys, 2019). Other drivers were habitat loss and conversion to intensive agriculture, fertilizer inputs, introduced species, and climate change.
There is agreement in the scientific community that pesticides are a central responsible factor for the observed terrestrial biodiversity declines. However, pesticides are perceived also as the chemicals with the strictest regulation, requiring an in-depth Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) for registration in the European Union (European Parliament, 2009). This procedure includes the performance of a set of toxicity studies and calculations using predicted exposure values to calculate a risk. If the risk is deemed acceptable pesticides can be placed on the market (for an overview see.g. Storck et al., 2017). Interestingly during this step of the authorization process the “acceptable risk” is leading to pesticides considered “safe” for the environment (EFSA, 2019). Farmers, assuming they are using “safe” pesticides, are currently confronted with the public, blaming them for the observed declines of biodiversity. It seems that the ERA for pesticide regulation as currently carried out is inappropriate since it cannot prevent that registered and commonly used pesticides have detrimental effects on our environment.
In the last decade we have seen an increasing complexity in ERA of pesticides. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), as the responsible authority for pesticide registration in Europe, published guidance documents describing the required studies for different groups of aquatic and terrestrial organisms and their implementation in risk calculations (EFSA, 2010, 2013a). For the terrestrial environment there are also specific documents for birds and mammals as well as for bees (EFSA, 2009, 2013b). Furthermore, EFSA also recently published scientific opinions on in-soil organisms, non-target arthropods, amphibians, and reptiles as well as non-target terrestrial plants calling for improvement of ERA for the respective groups (EFSA, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018). In some instances, such as for the currently neglected amphibians and reptiles, standard toxicity studies to produce reliable endpoints are lacking and the entire ERA is not even outlined yet. Scientific opinions are documents that highlight steps in ERA that need to be improved. However, the ERA is still performed as before until a guidance document is issued.
The current scheme for ERA of pesticides was also recently addressed by the group of chief scientific advisors, recommending among others the setting of unambiguous and quantifiable protection goals and structural changes of the registration process in the EU (European Commission, 2018b). The majority of the members of the European parliament agreed on a motion for a resolution on the authorization procedure for pesticides that mentions concern regarding the widespread use of pesticides and a lack of public knowledge about hazard and risk of pesticide use (European Parliament, 2018). A few scientific assessments of the European ERA scheme and its shortcomings exist (e.g. Newman et al., 2006; Schäfer et al., 2011; Stehle and Schulz, 2015b; Storck et al., 2017). Main points that are often raised are the inclusion of new test or surrogate species, the extension of studies to more realistic scenarios, the validity of the used uncertainty (assessment) factors, the lack of including sublethal endpoints in risk assessments and the need to address ignored groups of organisms (e.g. Jänsch et al., 2006; Desneux et al., 2007; Stahlschmidt and Brühl, 2012; Brühl et al., 2013). The consideration of interactions of pesticide effects with additional stressors such as nutrients or climate change was also pointed out (Köhler and Triebskorn, 2013; Baier et al., 2016).
But instead of highlighting all the open questions on various stages of a complex ERA scheme we consider it necessary to step back and address its entire structure. The observed biodiversity declines in European agricultural landscapes are mostly discussed for terrestrial organisms and not for aquatic systems. We will therefore specifically focus on the terrestrial part of ERA.
Application Sequences in Pesticide Use
The existing ERA is performed for one active substance or pesticide product that is applied once or a few times in a specific crop. However, the current cropping systems do not only receive one application of a pesticide. Their seeds might be already treated with a mixture of multiple systemic pesticides and several further products are applied on the growing plants or fruits during the season. In Germany in 2016 on average there were 6 pesticides applied (treatment index) in wheat, 7 in oilseed rape, 14 in potatoes, 22 in vine orchards, and 32 in apple production orchards (JKI, 2019). In the UK even more pesticides were used for the same crops: 11 pesticides for wheat, 13 for oilseed rape, and 21 for potatoes (FERA, 2017). Outside the EU maximum pesticide inputs as in banana in Costa Rica, where aerial applications are conducted in conventional plantations every 4 days, result in volumes of over 75 kg of active molecules/ha/year. It is obvious to every ecotoxicologist and ecologist that multiple, sequential field applications of biologically active chemicals are likely to cause more severe effects on a population of organisms than a single application event. However, the current risk assessment assumes that populations only face a single impact from a specific pesticide, with sufficient time following after application to allow the population to recover to former levels. In reality the same population is facing multiple pesticide impacts during the growing season. This is a worrying underestimation of the actual risk for biodiversity in the agricultural landscape resulting from pesticide use. Similar concerns of an underestimation of effects of contamination with multiple pesticides and other chemicals are also raised for human health (Leu and Shiva, 2014).
Indirect Effects
The current ERA scheme addresses the effects of a pesticide on each group of organisms separately. There are ERA sections on plants, on insects and spiders (arthropods) and birds. Field studies are sometimes performed for arthropods, where interactions between predatory insects and their prey is recorded. However, ERA does not include so-called indirect effects or interactions between trophic levels of different organism groups. An example can be seen in an herbicide that has no acute toxic effect on insects as well as birds and therefore passes the current risk assessment for both groups. However, the application of the herbicide leads to a reduction of “weeds” (as intended in the field) and of “non-target plants” (the same plant species growing outside the field), therefore reducing the amount of food for pollinators and herbivorous insects. This depletion can lead to further impacts on birds since herbivorous insect larvae, such as caterpillars, are smaller and less abundant after herbicide treatments (Hahn et al., 2014), reducing the insect biomass available to feed the birds offspring. Trophic interactions are fundamental features of ecosystems and therefore need to be considered in ERA.
In-Field Effects on Biodiversity
The European ERA focusses on environmental effects that can occur in semi-natural structures outside the agricultural fields. Currently no ERA for the in-field risk is mandated. However, the scientific opinion for non-target arthropods, mentions “biodiversity has to be supported to a certain degree in the in-field areas (…) in order to provide important ecosystem services (EFSA, 2015).” However, the respective guideline is not addressing this issue and negative effects on biodiversity are therefore deliberately accepted in the cropping area where pesticides are directly applied at biologically effective rates. The agricultural cropping area that receives pesticide inputs in Europe represents 22% of the total land area, reaching more than 30% for example in Germany and France (for 2015, Eurostat, 2019). Therefore, in countries with a high proportion of cropped area almost a third of the terrestrial land surface is not evaluated regarding negative effects of pesticides on its biodiversity. To explain the observed decline in insect biomass in the agricultural landscape of Germany (Hallmann et al., 2017) the most parsimonious explanation (Occam's razor) is the annual application of insecticides on more than 30% of Germanys land area, the entire cropping area, since the 1970s. No other factor such as the suggested light pollution or soil sealing needs to be invoked to explain the observed reductions (BMU, 2018).
The ERA required for pesticide regulation is in most cases not addressing the impact of pesticide use in agricultural fields and does not include food-web related ecosystem effects. This fundamental misconception leads to an ERA scheme and a resulting pesticide regulation that is not protective for biodiversity. If we remain working with the ERA scheme in place, in our opinion we will continue to observe further declines of many groups of organisms such as farmland birds and insects in the agricultural landscape. Neglecting the three described factors can have far-reaching consequences at the ecosystem level that are likely larger than an underestimation of risk due to a lower uncertainty factor or a flaw in the experimental design of a field study. The misconception can also not be compensated by additional studies including new surrogate species or groups of organisms. The banning of certain insecticides or broad-band herbicides will also hardly improve the situation. We therefore urgently need to rethink our basis for the regulation of these biologically active substances and develop a holistic approach to include indirect effects caused by multiple pesticides applied in the agricultural productive land area of Europe. Since the current ERA for the regulation of pesticides is not addressing the real-world situation we ought to accept that the current practice of pesticide use in European agriculture is not sufficiently protective and therefore not safe for the terrestrial environment.
Risk Management Instead of Assessment
The development of a new systemic approach for ERA will take considerable time and require substantial resources. We therefore also need to discuss other options to at least halt the negative effects of pesticides on biodiversity of the agricultural landscape. Risk management to mitigate negative pesticide effects might be a helpful alternative until we are able to assess the true environmental risk of pesticide usage. Reducing pesticides in agricultural practice is an obvious option. It was estimated that total pesticide use could be reduced by more than 40% in almost 60% of 946 evaluated farms in a French network without any negative effects on both productivity and profitability (Lechenet et al., 2017). Integrated pest management should focus on using natural enemies of pests and crop rotations and agree on pesticides as a last option instead of current practices, where pesticides are prophylactically implemented in farming practices (e.g., seed-treatments of cereals). We additionally could extend the proportion of semi-natural habitats without pesticide inputs in the agricultural landscape, increase agri-environmental schemes and enlarge the area of organic farming. Many options are on the table and a strengthening of the greening of the common agricultural policy (CAP) is currently discussed for the coming period of European policy (Erjavec and Erjavec, 2015; Solazzo et al., 2016; Alons, 2017). Risk mitigation of pesticides needs to be implemented effectively and at a large scale to bend the curve of biodiversity decline in agricultural landscapes now. If we delay to change agricultural practice and its current pesticide use our efforts to stop the current biodiversity decline and restore it to former levels need to be much larger at a later stage.
Author Contributions
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Acknowledgments
CB thanks colleagues and the students of the Ecotoxicology courses at the iES in Landau and at Universidad Nacional Costa Rica in Heredia for many intense discussions. Special thanks go to Marjon Belderbos and Clemes Ruepert for their hospitality and the tranquility of the garden house with the motmot that inspired this text. We also thank the reviewers and editor for helpful comments on earlier versions of this opinion. Open access publication was supported by BOKU (University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences) Vienna Open Access Publishing Fund.
References
Alons, G. (2017). Environmental policy integration in the EU's common agricultural policy: greening or greenwashing? J. Eur. Publ. Pol. 24, 1604–1622. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2017.1334085
Baier, F., Gruber, E., Hein, T., Bondar-Kunze, E., Ivanković, M., Mentler, A., et al. (2016). Non-target effects of a glyphosate-based herbicide on Common toad larvae (Bufo bufo, Amphibia) and associated algae are altered by temperature. PeerJ 4:e2641. doi: 10.7717/peerj.2641
BMU (2018). Federal Ministry for the Environment, Germany. Aktionsprogramm Insektenschutz “der Bundesregierung Diskussionsvorschläge des BMUfür Maßnahmen. 20 pp. Available online at: www.bmu.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Download_PDF/Artenschutz/massnahmen_insektenschutz_bf.pdf (accessed March 27, 2019).
Brühl, C. A., Schmidt, T., Pieper, S., and Alscher, A. (2013). Terrestrial pesticide exposure of amphibians: an underestimated cause of global decline? Sci. Rep. 3:1135. doi: 10.1038/srep01135
Desneux, N., Decourtye, A., and Delpuech, J. M. (2007). The sublethal effects of pesticides on beneficial arthropods. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 52, 81–106. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ento.52.110405.091440
Donald, P. F., Green, R. E., and Heath, M. F. (2001). Agricultural intensification and the collapse of Europe's farmland bird populations. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268, 25–29. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1325
EFSA (2009). Guidance document on risk assessment for birds and mammals on request from EFSA. EFSA J. 7:358. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1438
EFSA (2010). Scientific Opinion on the development of specific protection goal options for environmental risk assessment of pesticides, in particular in relation to the revision of the Guidance Documents on Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecotoxicology (SANCO/3268/2001 and SANCO/10329/2002). EFSA J. 8:1821. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1821
EFSA (2013a). Guidance on tiered risk assessment for plant protection products for aquatic organisms in edge-of-field surface waters. EFSA J. 11:290. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3290
EFSA (2013b). EFSA guidance document on the risk assessment of plant protection products on bees (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. and solitary bees). EFSA J. 11:3295. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3295
EFSA (2014). Scientific Opinion addressing the state of the science on risk assessment of plant protection products for non-target terrestrial plants. EFSA J. 12:3800. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3800
EFSA (2015). Scientific Opinion addressing the state of the science on risk assessment of plant protection products for non-target arthropods. EFSA J. 13:3996. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2015.3996
EFSA (2017). Scientific Opinion addressing the state of the science on risk assessment of plant protection products for in-soil organisms. EFSA J. 15:4690. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4690
EFSA (2018). Scientific Opinion on the state of the science on pesticide risk assessment for amphibians and reptiles. EFSA J. 16:5125. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5125
EFSA (2019). Pesticide Autorisation Procedure. Available online at: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/interactive-pages/pesticides-authorisation/Pesticides Authorisation (accessed August 23, 2019).
Erjavec, K., and Erjavec, E. (2015). ‘Greening the CAP'–Just a fashionable justification? A discourse analysis of the 2014–2020 CAP reform documents. Food Policy. 51, 53–62. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.12.006
European Commission (2018a). “Science for Environment Policy”: Flying Insects in West German Nature Reserves Suffer Decline of More Than 76% (1973–2000). European Commission DG Environment News Alert Service. Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/flying_insects_west_german_nature_reserves_suffer_decline_more_than_76pc_1973_2000_511na1_en.pdf (accessed March 27, 2019).
European Commission (2018b). EU Authorisation Processes of Plant Protection Products - from a Scientific Point of View. Group of Chief Scientific Advisors. 76. doi: 10.2777/238919
European Parliament (2009). Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 Concerning the Placing of Plant Protection Products on the Market. Official Journal of the European Union. 50p. Available online at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:309:0001:0050:EN:PDF (accessed March 27, 2019).
European Parliament (2018). Report on the Union's Authorisation Procedure for Pesticides (2018/2153(INI)) Special Committee on the Union's Authorisation Procedure for Pesticides. Available online at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2018-0475_EN.html (accessed March 27, 2019).
Eurostat (2019). EU Land Cover Statistics. Available online at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Land_cover_statistics (accessed March 27, 2019).
FERA (2017). Arable Crops in the United Kingdom 2016. 96. Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/pesticide-usage-survey-arable-crops-in-the-uk-2016 (accessed Mar 27, 2019).
Ferrario, C., Finizio, A., and Villa, S. (2017). Legacy and emerging contaminants in meltwater of three Alpine glaciers. Sci. Total Environ. 574, 350–357. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.067
Geiger, F., Bengtsson, J., Berendse, F., Weisser, W. W., Emmerson, M., Morales, M. B., et al. (2010). Persistent negative effects of pesticides on biodiversity and biological control potential on European farmland. Basic Appl. Ecol. 11, 97–105. doi: 10.1016/j.baae.2009.12.001
Hahn, M., Geisthardt, M., and Brühl, C. A. (2014). Effects of herbicide-treated host plants on the development of Mamestra brassicae L. caterpillars. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 33, 2633–2638. doi: 10.1002/etc.2726
Hallmann, C. A., Sorg, M., Jongejans, E., Siepel, H., Hofland, N., Schwan, H., et al. (2017). More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLoS ONE. 12:e0185809. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185809
Hoferkamp, L., Hermanson, M. H., and Muir, D. C. (2010). Current use pesticides in Arctic media; 2000–2007. Sci. Total Environ. 408, 2985–2994. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.11.038
Hvězdová, M., Kosubová, P., Košíková, M., Scherr, K. E., Šimek, Z., Brodský, L., et al. (2018). Currently and recently used pesticides in Central European arable soils. Sci. Total Environ. 613, 361–370. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.049
Jänsch, S., Frampton, G. K., Römbke, J., Van den Brink, P. J., and Scott-Fordsmand, J. J. (2006). Effects of pesticides on soil invertebrates in model ecosystem and field studies: a review and comparison with laboratory toxicity data. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 25, 2490–2501. doi: 10.1897/05-439R.1
JKI (2019). Ergebnisse, Behandlungsindex. Available online at: https://papa.julius-kuehn.de (accessed Mar 27, 2019).
Köhler, H. R., and Triebskorn, R. (2013). Wildlife ecotoxicology of pesticides: can we track effects to the population level and beyond? Science 341, 759–765. doi: 10.1126/science.1237591
Lechenet, M., Dessaint, F., Py, G., Makowski, D., and Munier-Jolain, N. (2017). Reducing pesticide use while preserving crop productivity and profitability on arable farms. Nat. Plants 3:17008. doi: 10.1038/nplants.2017.8
Newman, M. C., Crane, M., and Holloway, G. (2006). “Does pesticide risk assessment in the European Union assess long-term effects?” in Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Vol. 187, ed G. W. Ware (New York, NY: Springer), 1–65.
Potts, S. G., Biesmeijer, J. C., Kremen, C., Neumann, P., Schweiger, O., and Kunin, W. E. (2010). Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 345–353. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2010.01.007
Sánchez-Bayo, F., and Wyckhuys, K. A. (2019). Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: a review of its drivers. Biol. Conserv. 232, 8–27. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.020
Schäfer, R. B., van den Brink, P. J., and Liess, M. (2011). “Impacts of pesticides on freshwater ecosystems,” in Ecological Impacts of Toxic Chemicals, eds F. Sánchez-Bayo, P. J. van den Brink, and R. M. Mann (Sharjah: Bentham Science Publishers), 111–137. doi: 10.2174/97816080512121110101
Shunthirasingham, C., Gouin, T., Lei, Y. D., Ruepert, C., Castillo, L. E., and Wania, F. (2011). Current-use pesticide transport to Costa Rica's high-altitude tropical cloud forest. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 30, 2709–2717. doi: 10.1002/etc.671
Silva, V., Mol, H. G., Zomer, P., Tienstra, M., Ritsema, C. J., and Geissen, V. (2019). Pesticide residues in European agricultural soils – A hidden reality unfolded. Sci. Total Environ. 653, 1532–1545. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.441
Solazzo, R., Donati, M., Tomasi, L., and Arfini, F. (2016). How effective is greening policy in reducing GHG emissions from agriculture? Evidence from Italy. Sci. Total Environ. 573, 1115–1124. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.08.066
Stahlschmidt, P., and Brühl, C. A. (2012). Bats at risk? Bat activity and insecticide residue analysis of food items in an apple orchard. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 31, 1556–1563. doi: 10.1002/etc.1834
Stehle, S., and Schulz, R. (2015a). Agricultural insecticides threaten surface waters at the global scale. PNAS 112, 5750–5755. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1500232112
Stehle, S., and Schulz, R. (2015b). Pesticide authorization in the EU—environment unprotected? Environ. Sci. Poll. Res. 22, 19632–19647. doi: 10.1007/s11356-015-5148-5
Keywords: ecotoxicology, plant protection products, agroecology, regulatory, EU
Citation: Brühl CA and Zaller JG (2019) Biodiversity Decline as a Consequence of an Inappropriate Environmental Risk Assessment of Pesticides. Front. Environ. Sci. 7:177. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2019.00177
Received: 03 April 2019; Accepted: 16 October 2019;
Published: 31 October 2019.
Edited by:
Annemarie Van Wezel, University of Amsterdam, NetherlandsReviewed by:
Jane A. Entwistle, Northumbria University, United KingdomCopyright © 2019 Brühl and Zaller. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Carsten A. Brühl, YnJ1ZWhsJiN4MDAwNDA7dW5pLWxhbmRhdS5kZQ==