Suchergebnisse

Abstract
Background
The aim of environmental risk assessment (ERA) for pesticides is to protect ecosystems by ensuring that specific protection goals (SPGs) are met. The ERA follows a prospective tiered approach, starting with the most conservative and simple step in risk assessment (RA) (so-called tier 1) using the lowest available appropriate endpoint derived from ecotoxicological tests. In 2015, for the tier 1 RA of aquatic primary producers, the recommendation was changed from using the lowest of the 50% inhibition (EC50) values based on biomass (area under the curve—EbC50), increase in biomass (yield- EyC50) or growth rate (ErC50) to only using the growth rate inhibition endpoint (ErC50) because it is independent of the test design and thus more robust. This study examines the implications of this such on the level of conservatism provided by the tier 1 RA and evaluates whether it ensures a suitable minimum protection level.

Results
Our analysis shows that replacing the lowest endpoint with the growth rate inhibition endpoint while maintaining the assessment factor (AF) of 10 significantly reduces the conservatism in the tier 1 RA. Comparing protection levels achieved with different endpoints reveals that the current assessment is less protective. To maintain the previous level of protection, and since the protection goals have not changed, we recommend to multiply the default AF of 10 by an extra factor of minimum 2.4 in the tier 1 RA based on ErC50. Independently of the endpoint selected in tier 1 RA, several issues in the general RA of pesticides contribute to uncertainties when assessing the protection levels, e.g., lack of appropriate comparison of the higher tier experimental studies (i.e., best achievable approximation of field situation, so-called surrogate reference tier) with field conditions or the regulatory framework's failure to consider realistic conditions in agricultural landscapes with multiple stressors and pesticide mixtures.

Conclusions
We advise to consider adjusting the risk assessment in order to reach at least the previous protection level for aquatic primary producers. Indeed continuing using an endpoint with a higher value and without adjustment of the assessment factor is likely to jeopardize the need of halting biodiversity loss in surface waters.

Abstract
Background
Biodiversity loss is particularly pronounced in agroecosystems. Agricultural fields cover about one-third of the European Union and are crucial habitats for many species. At the same time, agricultural fields receive the highest pesticide input in European landscapes. Non-target species, including plants and arthropods, closely related to targeted pests, are directly affected by pesticides. Direct effects on these lower trophic levels cascade through the food web, resulting in indirect effects via the loss of food and habitat for subsequent trophic levels. The overarching goals of the European pesticide legislation require governments to sufficiently consider direct and indirect effects on plants and arthropods when authorising pesticides. This publication provides an overview of a workshop's findings in 2023 on whether the current pesticide risk assessment adequately addresses these requirements.

Results
Effects due to in-field exposure to pesticides are currently not assessed for plants and inadequately assessed for arthropods, resulting in an impairment of the food web support and biodiversity. Deficiencies lie within the risk assessment, as defined in the terrestrial guidance document from 2002. To overcome this problem, we introduce a two-step assessment method feasible for risk assessors, that is to determine (i) whether a pesticide product might have severe impacts on plants or arthropods and (ii) whether these effects extend to a broad taxonomic spectrum. When each step is fulfilled, it can be concluded that the in-field exposure of the pesticide use under assessment could lead to unacceptable direct effects on non-target species in-field and thus subsequent indirect effects on the food web. While our primary focus is to improve risk assessment methodologies, it is crucial to note that risk mitigation measures, such as conservation headlands, exist in cases where risks from in-field exposure have been identified.

Conclusions
We advocate that direct and indirect effects caused by in-field exposure to pesticides need to be adequately included in the risk assessment and risk management as soon as possible. To achieve this, we provide recommendations for the authorities including an evaluation method. Implementing this method would address a major deficiency in the current in-field pesticide risk assessment and ensure better protection of biodiversity.