ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2019
Scientific statement on the coverage of bats by the current pesticide risk assessment for birds and mammals.
Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 52 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systemic Effects of Pesticides on Insectivorous Bats: A Proteomics Approach.Integrative and comparative biology · 2025Article
- Article
- Understanding the role of bats as fungal vectors in the environment.IMA fungus · 2024Article
- Quantification of threats to bats at localized spatial scales for conservation and management.PloS one · 2024Article
- Revised guidance on the risk assessment of plant protection products on bees (EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2023Article
- The BEEHAVEEnvironmental toxicology and chemistry · 2022Article
- Predicted Dermal and Dietary Exposure of Bats to Pesticides.Environmental toxicology and chemistry · 2022Article
- Quantitative selection of focal birds and mammals in higher-tier risk assessment: An application to rice cultivations.Integrated environmental assessment and management · 2022Article
- Establishing realistic exposure estimates of solitary bee larvae via pollen for use in risk assessment.Integrated environmental assessment and management · 2022Article
- Article
- Acute toxicity and metabolism of pesticides in birds.Journal of pesticide science · 2021Article
- Assessing the Risks to Bats from Plant Protection Products: A Review of the Recent European Food Safety Authority Statement Regarding Toxicity and Exposure Routes.Environmental toxicology and chemistry · 2021Review
- An environmental risk assessment for a DDX-contaminated agricultural area in Turkey: soil vs. plant or human vs. animal.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021Article
- Do We Need to Use Bats as Bioindicators?Biology · 2021Article
- Magnitude and decline of pesticide co-formulant residues in vegetables and fruits: results from field trials compared to estimated values.Pest management science · 2021Article
- Scientific statement on the coverage of bats by the current pesticide risk assessment for birds and mammals.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2019Article
- Selecting appropriate focal species for assessing the risk to birds from newly drilled pesticide-treated winter cereal fields in France.Integrated environmental assessment and management · 2019Article
- Assessing the population relevance of endocrine-disrupting effects for nontarget vertebrates exposed to plant protection products.Integrated environmental assessment and management · 2019Article
- Non-Apis Bee Exposure Workshop: Industry Participants' View.Environmental entomology · 2019Article
- Guidance for the identification of endocrine disruptors in the context of Regulations (EU) No 528/2012 and (EC) No 1107/2009.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bats are an important group of mammals, frequently foraging in farmland and potentially exposed to pesticides. This statement considers whether the current risk assessment performed for birds and ground dwelling mammals exposed to pesticides is also protective of bats. Three main issues were addressed. Firstly, whether bats are toxicologically more or less sensitive than the most sensitive birds and mammals. Secondly, whether oral exposure of bats to pesticides is greater or lower than in ground dwelling mammals and birds. Thirdly, whether there are other important exposure routes relevant to bats. A large variation in toxicological sensitivity and no relationship between sensitivity of bats and bird or mammal test-species to pesticides could be found. In addition, bats have unique traits, such as echolocation and torpor which can be adversely affected by exposure to pesticides and which are not covered by the endpoints currently selected for wild mammal risk assessment. The current exposure assessment methodology was used for oral exposure and adapted to bats using bat-specific parameters. For oral exposure, it was concluded that for most standard risk assessment scenarios the current approach did not cover exposure of bats to pesticide residues in food. Calculations of potential dermal exposure for bats foraging during spraying operations suggest that this may be a very important exposure route. Dermal routes of exposure should be combined with inhalation and oral exposure. Based on the evidence compiled, the Panel concludes that bats are not adequately covered by the current risk assessment approach, and that there is a need to develop a bat-specific risk assessment scheme. In general, there was scarcity of data to assess the risks for bat exposed to pesticides. Recommendations for research are made, including identification of alternatives to laboratory testing of bats to assess toxicological effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.