Insufficient Environmental Protection by the European Regulatory Framework for Pesticides

IF 12.2 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL
环境科学与技术 Pub Date : 2026-10-20 Epub Date: 2026-10-05 DOI:10.1021/acs.est.6c06604
Ralf B. Schäfer, Thomas Backhaus, Juliane Filser, Mark O. Gessner, Matthias Liess, Martina Roß-Nickoll, Maj Rundlöf, Martin Scheringer, David J. Spurgeon, Teja Tscharntke, Paul J. Van den Brink, Andreas Schäffer
{"title":"Insufficient Environmental Protection by the European Regulatory Framework for Pesticides","authors":"Ralf B. Schäfer,&nbsp;Thomas Backhaus,&nbsp;Juliane Filser,&nbsp;Mark O. Gessner,&nbsp;Matthias Liess,&nbsp;Martina Roß-Nickoll,&nbsp;Maj Rundlöf,&nbsp;Martin Scheringer,&nbsp;David J. Spurgeon,&nbsp;Teja Tscharntke,&nbsp;Paul J. Van den Brink,&nbsp;Andreas Schäffer","doi":"10.1021/acs.est.6c06604","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Schriever\r\net al. (2025) argue that environmental risk assessment\r\nof pesticides in the European Union is sufficiently protective and\r\nthat regulatory thresholds are rarely exceeded. Here, we reexamine\r\nthese claims based on existing evidence from monitoring, systematic\r\nreviews, and different types of field studies. The available evidence\r\nindicates that measured pesticide concentrations frequently exceed\r\npredicted concentrations and regulatory thresholds and are associated\r\nwith adverse ecological impacts. The mechanisms driving this result\r\ninclude the joint action of pesticides applied in temporal and spatial\r\nproximity, varied environmental conditions, interactive effects of\r\npesticides with additional stressors, and indirect ecological effects\r\nthat propagate within biological communities. These neglected intricacies\r\nexplain why current single-substance prospective assessments tend\r\nto underpredict real-world pesticide exposure and impact in field\r\nsettings. The corollary is that the current regulatory framework in\r\nEurope proves to be insufficient to protect biodiversity and ecosystems.\r\nPriority regulatory reforms include strengthening postregistration\r\nmonitoring, refining predictive exposure models, and explicitly considering\r\nlandscape context, indirect and mixture effects, and interactions\r\nwith nonchemical stressors.</p>","PeriodicalId":36,"journal":{"name":"环境科学与技术","volume":"60 41","pages":"29260–29272"},"PeriodicalIF":12.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"环境科学与技术","FirstCategoryId":"1","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.6c06604","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/10/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Schriever et al. (2025) argue that environmental risk assessment of pesticides in the European Union is sufficiently protective and that regulatory thresholds are rarely exceeded. Here, we reexamine these claims based on existing evidence from monitoring, systematic reviews, and different types of field studies. The available evidence indicates that measured pesticide concentrations frequently exceed predicted concentrations and regulatory thresholds and are associated with adverse ecological impacts. The mechanisms driving this result include the joint action of pesticides applied in temporal and spatial proximity, varied environmental conditions, interactive effects of pesticides with additional stressors, and indirect ecological effects that propagate within biological communities. These neglected intricacies explain why current single-substance prospective assessments tend to underpredict real-world pesticide exposure and impact in field settings. The corollary is that the current regulatory framework in Europe proves to be insufficient to protect biodiversity and ecosystems. Priority regulatory reforms include strengthening postregistration monitoring, refining predictive exposure models, and explicitly considering landscape context, indirect and mixture effects, and interactions with nonchemical stressors.

欧洲农药监管框架的环境保护不足
Schriever等人(2025)认为,欧盟农药的环境风险评估具有足够的保护性,很少超过监管阈值。在这里,我们根据现有的监测证据、系统评价和不同类型的实地研究来重新审视这些说法。现有证据表明,测量的农药浓度经常超过预测浓度和监管阈值,并与不利的生态影响有关。驱动这一结果的机制包括农药在时空上的共同作用、不同的环境条件、农药与其他应激源的相互作用以及在生物群落内传播的间接生态效应。这些被忽视的复杂性解释了为什么目前的单一物质前瞻性评估往往低估了实际农药暴露和田间环境的影响。其必然结果是,欧洲目前的监管框架已被证明不足以保护生物多样性和生态系统。监管改革的重点包括加强注册后监测,完善预测暴露模型,明确考虑景观背景、间接和混合效应以及与非化学应激源的相互作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
环境科学与技术
环境科学与技术 环境科学-工程:环境
CiteScore
17.50
自引率
9.60%
发文量
12359
审稿时长
2.8 months
期刊介绍: Environmental Science & Technology (ES&T) is a co-sponsored academic and technical magazine by the Hubei Provincial Environmental Protection Bureau and the Hubei Provincial Academy of Environmental Sciences. Environmental Science & Technology (ES&T) holds the status of Chinese core journals, scientific papers source journals of China, Chinese Science Citation Database source journals, and Chinese Academic Journal Comprehensive Evaluation Database source journals. This publication focuses on the academic field of environmental protection, featuring articles related to environmental protection and technical advancements.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书