ArticleIntegrated environmental assessment and management2025
The European regulatory system for plant protection products-cause of a "Silent Spring" or highly advanced and protective?
Article in Integrated environmental assessment and management, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Current publications that are shaping public perception repeatedly claim that residues of plant protection products (PPP) in the environment demonstrate gaps in assessing the exposure and effects of PPP, allegedly revealing the inability of the European regulatory system to prevent environmental contamination and damage such as biodiversity decline. The hypothesis is that environmental risk assessments rely on inappropriate predictive models that underestimate exposure and do not explicitly account for the impact of combinations of environmental stressors and physiological differences in stress responses. This article puts this criticism into context to allow for a more balanced evaluation of the European regulatory system for PPP. There is broad consensus that the decline in biodiversity is real. This article analyzed current literature for causes of this decline and of chemical contamination. The main drivers identified were land use changes and structural uniformity of agricultural landscapes or multiple contaminants emitted by various sources such as wastewater discharge systems. Comparing measured environmental concentrations from published monitoring studies with exposure predictions from the regulatory risk assessment reveals only slight occasional exceedances for a few environmental scenarios and compounds. Therefore, the call for greater conservatism in the European authorization process for PPPs will not lead to an improvement in the environmental situation. We suggest enhancing landscape diversity through the European Union Common Agricultural Policy and reducing contamination from wastewater and farmyard effluents. The current regulatory risk management toolbox should be expanded to include flexible localized mitigation measures and treatment options to reduce applied amounts and off-target exposure.
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.