RESUMEN
The placing of plant protection products (PPPs) on the market in the European Union is governed by numerous regulations. These regulations are among the most stringent in the world, however they have been the subject of criticisms especially because of the decline in biodiversity. The objectives of this work were to review (1) the functioning and actors involved in the PPP framework processes, (2) the construction of the environmental risk assessment focused on biodiversity, and (3) the suggested ways to respond to the identified limits. Both literature from social sciences and ecotoxicology were examined. Despite the protective nature of the European regulation on PPPs, the very imperfect consideration of biodiversity in the evaluation process was underlined. The main limits are the multiplicity of applicable rules, the routinization of the evaluation procedures, the lack of consideration of social data, and the lack of independence of the evaluation. Strengths of the regulation are the decision to integrate a systemic approach in the evaluation of PPPs, the development of modeling tools, and the phytopharmacovigilance systems. The avenues for improvement concern the realism of the risk assessment (species used, cocktail effects ), a greater transparency and independence in the conduct of evaluations, and the opening of the evaluation and decision-making processes to actors such as beekeepers or NGOs. Truly interdisciplinary reflections crossing the functioning of the living world, its alteration by PPPs, and how these elements question the users of PPPs would allow to specify social actions, public policies, and their regulation to better protect biodiversity.
RESUMEN
Preservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services is critical for sustainable development and human well-being. However, an unprecedented erosion of biodiversity is observed and the use of plant protection products (PPP) has been identified as one of its main causes. In this context, at the request of the French Ministries responsible for the Environment, for Agriculture and for Research, a panel of 46 scientific experts ran a nearly 2-year-long (2020-2022) collective scientific assessment (CSA) of international scientific knowledge relating to the impacts of PPP on biodiversity and ecosystem services. The scope of this CSA covered the terrestrial, atmospheric, freshwater, and marine environments (with the exception of groundwater) in their continuity from the site of PPP application to the ocean, in France and French overseas territories, based on international knowledge produced on or transposable to this type of context (climate, PPP used, biodiversity present, etc.). Here, we provide a brief summary of the CSA's main conclusions, which were drawn from about 4500 international publications. Our analysis finds that PPP contaminate all environmental matrices, including biota, and cause direct and indirect ecotoxicological effects that unequivocally contribute to the decline of certain biological groups and alter certain ecosystem functions and services. Levers for action to limit PPP-driven pollution and effects on environmental compartments include local measures from plot to landscape scales and regulatory improvements. However, there are still significant gaps in knowledge regarding environmental contamination by PPPs and its effect on biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services. Perspectives and research needs are proposed to address these gaps.
RESUMEN
Before their placing on the market, the safety of plant protection products (PPP) towards both human and animal health, and the environment has to be assessed using experimental and modelling approaches. Models are crucial tools for PPP risk assessment and some even help to avoid animal testing. This review investigated the use of modelling approaches in the ecotoxicology section of PPP active substance assessment reports prepared by the authorities and opened to consultation from 2011 to 2021 in the European Union. Seven categories of models (Structure-Activity, ToxicoKinetic, ToxicoKinetic-ToxicoDynamic, Species Sensitivity Distribution, population, community, and mixture) were searched for into the reports of 317 active substances. At least one model category was found for 44 % of the investigated active substances. The most detected models were Species Sensitivity Distribution, Structure-Activity and ToxicoKinetic for 27, 21 and 15 % of the active substances, respectively. The use of modelling was of particular importance for conventional active substances such as sulfonylurea or carbamates contrary to microorganisms and plant derived substances. This review also highlighted a strong imbalance in model usage among the biological groups considered in the European Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. For example, models were more often used for aquatic than for terrestrial organisms (e.g., birds, mammals). Finally, a gap between the set of models used in reports and those existing in the literature was observed highlighting the need for the implementation of more sophisticated models into PPP regulation.
