Suchergebnisse

Current agroecology is often categorized into three facets, science, practice, and movement. While the latter two aspects currently play significant and varying roles in different regions of the world, the fundamental aspect is the first one, the scientific approach that subsequently provided the possibility of the birth of the other two. The concept of integrated plant protection i.e., the emphasis on ecological considerations in chemical pest control emerged as a revolutionary novel concept in the middle of the last century. Among the priority principles, there are several similarities between ecological plant protection suggested by the pioneering Hungarian researcher Barnabás Nagy in 1957 and integrated pest management (IPM) initiated by US scientists Stern et al. in 1959, in given aspects such as the use of natural enemies, forecasting, and environmentally friendly strategies. In turn, the principles of ecological plant protection and IPM overlap on numerous points, but differences are also apparent. Neither of these strategies, however, emphases with due vigor the significance of persistence, pesticide residues, and chronic health-damaging effects. By today, properly assessing the environmental fate, behavior and chronic side effects of pesticides have become as important as taking the rapidly changing composition of local communities into consideration by the above three aspects of agroecology. The current pesticide re-registration strategy of the European Union focuses on prolonged changes from chronic effects. Ecological plant protection and IPM set preferences of sustainability e.g., the use of mechanical or biological protection methods and lowering the rate of agrochemical protection, but they have failed to establish transparent sustainability requirements that are easy to comprehend by general consumers. In contrast, ecological (organic) agriculture managed to formulate such clear regulations (a complete ban on synthetic pesticides), which is well-reflected in their rising preference by consumers ...

Chemical substances applied in animal husbandry or veterinary medicine and in crop protection represent substantial environmental loads, and their residues occur in food and feed products. Product approval is governed differently in these two sectors in the European Union (EU), and the occurrence of veterinary drug (VD) and pesticide residues indicated by contamination notification cases in the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed of the EU also show characteristic differences. While the initial high numbers of VD residues reported in 2002 were successfully suppressed to less than 100 cases annually by 2006 and on, the number of notification cases for pesticide residues showed a gradual increase from a low (approximately 50 cases annually) initial level until 2005 to more than 250 cases annually after 2009, with a halt occurring only in 2016. Main notifiers of VD residues include Germany, Belgium, the UK, and Italy (63, 59, 42, and 31 notifications announced, respectively), and main consigning countries of non-compliances are Vietnam, India, China, and Brazil (88, 50, 34, and 23 notifications, respectively). Thus, countries of South and Southeast Asia are considered a vulnerable point with regard to VD residues entering the EU market. Unintended side effects of VDs and plant protection products may be caused not only by the active ingredients but also by various additives in these preparations. Adjuvants (e.g., surfactants) and other co-formulants used in therapeutic agents and feed additives, as well as in pesticide formulations have long been considered as inactive ingredients in the aspects of the required main biological effect of the pharmaceutical or pesticide, and in turn, legal regulations of the approval and marketing of these additives specified significantly less stringent risk assessment requirements, than those specified for the active ingredients. However, numerous studies have shown additive, synergistic, or antagonistic side effects between the active ingredients and their additives in formulated ...

AbstractGlyphosate (GLY), the most widely used herbicide in the world, is frequently detected in various environmental matrices, including soil, the foundation of agriculture. In practice, more than 2000 GLY-based herbicide (GBH) products are used, consisting of one or more active ingredients (AIs) and so-called "inert" co-formulants that increase the efficacy of the AIs. However, the focus of ecotoxicological assessments is mainly on AIs, while organisms are exposed to complex pesticide formulations under real-world conditions. Overall, the effects on non-target organisms indicate a broad range of biochemical and physiological modes of action, which contrasts with the general assumption that herbicides are specific and act only on target plants. Both GLY alone and GBHs have unintended side-effects on many terrestrial organisms, including non-target plants, microorganisms, insects, spiders, or earthworms, as well as vertebrates such as amphibians, reptiles, or mammals. One of the triggering mechanisms for these effects is oxidative stress with consequences on biochemical parameters and DNA damage. In addition, disruptions of various physiological, behavioral and ecological processes have been reported. Most studies have examined the short-term effects of a single application of GLY/GBH to a single species. However, the agricultural practice of applying GBHs two to three times during a cultivation season over an extended period of time, the interactions with other pesticides and agrochemicals applied to the same field, and effects on ecological interactions within the field and landscape are rarely considered. In the vast majority of cases, the toxicity of GBHs exceeds the toxicity of GLY, demonstrating that supposedly inert co-formulants are either toxic in their own right or interact and add to the toxicity of AIs. The chemical diversity of different GBHs and the non-disclosure of the co-formulants make it difficult to attribute effects to specific chemical substances within a GBH. Moreover, impurities in GBHs (e.g., heavy metals such as arsenic, chromium, cobalt) pose additional environment and food safety risks. These impacts are even more critical because GBHs are so widely distributed worldwide and interact with other pollutants and environmental stressors. Based on the available literature on terrestrial ecotoxicity, and given the drastic decline in biodiversity, we conclude that the continued high use of GBHs, resulting in increased exposure and risk, cannot be considered ecologically sustainable.

AbstractGlyphosate (GLY), the most widely used herbicide active ingredient (AI) in the world, is frequently detected in aquatic environments where it can affect non-target organisms. Globally, more than 2000 commercial GLY-based herbicides (GBHs) are used to control weeds. Non-target organisms are exposed to complex pesticide formulations under real environmental conditions, but the co-formulants contained in GBHs are classified as so-called inert and inactive ingredients in terms of their biological effects. The main objective of this comprehensive review is to compile the results of aquatic ecotoxicological studies on the side-effects of GLY, GBHs, and their formulating agents. Based on the results demonstrated for a variety of plant and animal aquatic organisms, oxidative stress appears to be a major trigger for these adverse effects, affecting the integrity of DNA and other biochemical functions. Furthermore, there is evidence of impairment of various physiological and behavioral functions. Adverse effects of GLY and GBHs have been observed even at very low concentrations. There are also differences in the sensitivity of the aquatic organisms tested, even with similar lifestyles, habitats or identical taxa. The studies typically investigate the short-term effects of a single exposure to GLY/GBH on a single species, whilst in reality multiple applications of GBHs together with other pesticides are common during a cropping cycle. Moreover, the interactions between GLY/GBHs and other aquatic contaminants are rarely studied. Higher toxicity of GBHs compared to GLY alone has often been observed, demonstrating that co-formulants can be highly toxic on their own and markedly increase the toxicity of the GBH formulation. The possible impurities in GBHs, such as heavy metals, can cause additional problems for the environment and food safety. The widespread and massive use of GBHs leads to increased exposure and environmental hazards. In addition, the need for a revision of the risk assessment system is emphasized. According to the results of aquatic ecotoxicological studies, the current use and pollution of the aquatic environment by GLY/GBHs is highly problematic and cannot be considered environmentally sustainable. It is, therefore, necessary to at least tighten the permitted forms of use.

AbstractGlyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) are currently the most widely used agrochemicals for weed control. Environmental risk assessments (ERA) on nontarget organisms mostly consider the active ingredients (AIs) of these herbicides, while much less is known on effects of commercial GBH formulations that are actually applied in the field. Moreover, it is largely unknown to what extent different soil characteristics alter potential side effects of herbicides. We conducted a greenhouse experiment growing a model weed population of Amaranthus retroflexus in arable field soil with either 3.0 or 4.1% soil organic matter (SOM) content and treated these weeds either with GBHs (Roundup LB Plus, Touchdown Quattro, Roundup PowerFlex) or their respective AIs (isopropylammonium, diammonium or potassium salts of glyphosate) at recommended dosages. Control pots were mechanically weeded. Nontarget effects were assessed on the surface activity of the springtail species Sminthurinus niger (pitfall trapping) and litter decomposition in the soil (teabag approach). Both GBHs and AIs increased the surface activity of springtails compared to control pots; springtail activity was higher under GBHs than under corresponding AIs. Stimulation of springtail activity was much higher in soil with higher SOM content than with low SOM content (significant treatment x SOM interaction). Litter decomposition was unaffected by GBHs, AIs or SOM levels. We suggest that ERAs for pesticides should be performed with actually applied herbicides rather than only on AIs and should also consider influences of different soil properties.

RNA interference (RNAi) is a biological process in which double-stranded ribonucleic acid (dsRNA) molecules inhibit protein expression. In recent years, the application of dsRNA has been used in the development of agricultural products for pest control. The 2019 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Conference on RNAi Based Pesticides ("the Conference") brought together academic, industry, and government experts in various aspects of RNAi to discuss the current state of knowledge and topics to help in developing considerations for risk assessment. The Conference focused on environment, with some discussion of human health. Along with presentations on the use of dsRNA-based products in agriculture, government regulation, risk assessment, and a background on the Draft OECD Working Paper on "Considerations for the Environmental Risk Assessment of the Application of Sprayed or Externally Applied dsRNA-Based Pesticides" ("OECD Working Paper"), the Conference included panel discussions from presenters at the end of each session and a larger discussion session with Conference participants on the environmental fate of dsRNA, non-target organism (NTO) risk assessment, and human health risk assessment. This paper summarizes input from presenters and Conference participants during these discussions. Key considerations from these discussions have already been incorporated into the OECD Working Paper, that once finalized and published, will facilitate regulators in evaluating externally applied dsRNA-based products for potential environmental risks.

RNA interference (RNAi) is a biological process in which double-stranded ribonucleic acid (dsRNA) molecules inhibit protein expression. In recent years, the application of dsRNA has been used in the development of agricultural products for pest control. The 2019 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Conference on RNAi Based Pesticides ("the Conference") brought together academic, industry, and government experts in various aspects of RNAi to discuss the current state of knowledge and topics to help in developing considerations for risk assessment. The Conference focused on environment, with some discussion of human health. Along with presentations on the use of dsRNA-based products in agriculture, government regulation, risk assessment, and a background on the Draft OECD Working Paper on "Considerations for the Environmental Risk Assessment of the Application of Sprayed or Externally Applied dsRNA-Based Pesticides" ("OECD Working Paper"), the Conference included panel discussions from presenters at the end of each session and a larger discussion session with Conference participants on the environmental fate of dsRNA, non-target organism (NTO) risk assessment, and human health risk assessment. This paper summarizes input from presenters and Conference participants during these discussions. Key considerations from these discussions have already been incorporated into the OECD Working Paper, that once finalized and published, will facilitate regulators in evaluating externally applied dsRNA-based products for potential environmental risks.

AbstractBackgroundGlyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) are among the most often used pesticides. The hundreds of GBHs used worldwide consist of the active ingredient (AI) glyphosate in form of different salts, possibly other AIs, and various mostly undisclosed co-formulants. Pesticide risk assessments are commonly performed using single AIs or GBHs at standard soil conditions without vegetation. In a greenhouse experiment, we established a weed population with common amaranth (Amaranthus retroflexus)to examine the effects of three GBHs (Roundup LB Plus, Roundup PowerFlex, Touchdown Quattro) and their corresponding AIs (salts of glyphosate isopropylammonium, potassium, diammonium) on the activity and physiological biomarkers (glutathione S-transferase, GST; acetylcholine esterase, AChE) of an ecologically relevant earthworm species (Lumbricus terrestris). GBHs and AIs were applied at recommended doses; hand weeding served as control. Experiments were established with two soil types differing in organic matter content (SOM; 3.0% vs. 4.1%) and other properties.ResultsEarthworm activity (casting and movement activity) decreased after application of glyphosate formulations or active ingredients compared to hand weeding. We found no consistent pattern that formulations had either higher or lower effects on earthworm activity than their active ingredients; rather, differences were substance-specific. Earthworm activity was little affected by soil organic matter levels. Biomarkers remained unaffected by weed control types; GST but not AChE was decreased under high SOM. Water infiltration after a simulated heavy rainfall was interactively affected by weed control types and SOM. Leachate amount was higher after application of formulations than active ingredients and was higher under low SOM. Glyphosate concentrations in soil and leachate were strongly affected by application of formulations or active ingredients and varied with SOM (significant weed control type x SOM interaction).ConclusionsWe found that both commercial formulations and pure active ingredients can influence earthworms with consequences on important soil functions. Glyphosate products showed increased, reduced or similar effects than pure glyphosate on particular soil functions; soil properties can substantially alter this. Especially at lower SOM, heavy rainfalls could lead to more glyphosate leaching into water bodies. A full disclosure of co-formulants would be necessary to further decipher their specific contributions to these inconsistent effects.

The assessment of the impacts of growing genetically modified (GM) crops remains a major political and scientific challenge in Europe. Concerns have been raised by the evidence of adverse and unexpected environmental effects and differing opinions on the outcomes of environmental risk assessments (ERA). The current regulatory system is hampered by insufficiently developed methods for GM crop safety testing and introduction studies. Improvement to the regulatory system needs to address the lack of well designed GM crop monitoring frameworks, professional and financial conflicts of interest within the ERA research and testing community, weaknesses in consideration of stakeholder interests and specific regional conditions, and the lack of comprehensive assessments that address the environmental and socio-economic risk assessment interface. To address these challenges, we propose a European Network for systematic GMO impact assessment (ENSyGMO) with the aim directly to enhance ERA and post-market environmental monitoring (PMEM) of GM crops, to harmonize and ultimately secure the long-term socio-political impact of the ERA process and the PMEM in the EU. These goals would be achieved with a multi-dimensional and multi-sector approach to GM crop impact assessment, targeting the variability and complexity of the EU agro-environment and the relationship with relevant socio-economic factors. Specifically, we propose to develop and apply methodologies for both indicator and field site selection for GM crop ERA and PMEM, embedded in an EU-wide typology of agro-environments. These methodologies should be applied in a pan-European field testing network using GM crops. The design of the field experiments and the sampling methodology at these field sites should follow specific hypotheses on GM crop effects and use state-of-the art sampling, statistics and modelling approaches. To address public concerns and create confidence in the ENSyGMO results, actors with relevant specialist knowledge from various sectors should be ...

The assessment of the impacts of growing genetically modified (GM) crops remains a major political and scientific challenge in Europe. Concerns have been raised by the evidence of adverse and unexpected environmental effects and differing opinions on the outcomes of environmental risk assessments (ERA). The current regulatory system is hampered by insufficiently developed methods for GM crop safety testing and introduction studies. Improvement to the regulatory system needs to address the lack of well designed GM crop monitoring frameworks, professional and financial conflicts of interest within the ERA research and testing community, weaknesses in consideration of stakeholder interests and specific regional conditions, and the lack of comprehensive assessments that address the environmental and socio-economic risk assessment interface. To address these challenges, we propose a European Network for systematic GMO impact assessment (ENSyGMO) with the aim directly to enhance ERA and post-market environmental monitoring (PMEM) of GM crops, to harmonize and ultimately secure the long-term socio-political impact of the ERA process and the PMEM in the EU. These goals would be achieved with a multi-dimensional and multi-sector approach to GM crop impact assessment, targeting the variability and complexity of the EU agro-environment and the relationship with relevant socio-economic factors. Specifically, we propose to develop and apply methodologies for both indicator and field site selection for GM crop ERA and PMEM, embedded in an EU-wide typology of agro-environments. These methodologies should be applied in a pan-European field testing network using GM crops. The design of the field experiments and the sampling methodology at these field sites should follow specific hypotheses on GM crop effects and use state-of-the art sampling, statistics and modelling approaches. To address public concerns and create confidence in the ENSyGMO results, actors with relevant specialist knowledge from various sectors should be involved.