Source: French to English Tester Published on: 2026-05-11
Source: The Conversation – France in French (3)– By Cécile Chevrier, Epidemiology, Inserm
As part of the legislative package “Omnibus X – Food Safety and Animal Feed”, the European Commission proposes to simplify the authorization procedures for placing pesticides on the market, while scientific data show widespread contamination of the population as well as of air, water, and soil. The European Commission’s decision would run counter to the necessary strengthening of pesticide evaluation to protect human health and limit environmental pollution.
How is a pesticide evaluated and brought to market? Why can pesticides pose risks to health and the environment even though their use is authorized? Let’s take stock.
What is a pesticide?
A pesticide (pest-Â: harmfulÂ;-cide : to kill) is used to control and/or kill living organisms that we consider harmful to our activities, such as agriculture, but also the protection of wood, transportation, or the fight against mosquitoes.
However, a pesticide can pose a risk to organisms not originally targeted if it comes into contact with them. For example, some insecticides act on the targeted insectby mechanisms of neurotoxicity common to other organisms, like bees or the human species. Being in contact with a pesticide therefore presents a potential risk that must be identified and controlled.
How is a pesticide currently authorized?
In regulatory language, the pesticides used especially on crops for our agriculture are more positively called: plant protection products (pharmaco-for medicines;phyto-for plants), that is to say plant protection products.
A bit of history… We have been using pesticides for centuries. It is in1978that Europe begins a harmonization process with a common list of banned products, becoming aware of the danger they can pose to human health.
In 1991, an important paradigm shift occurred with the establishment of a “positive list” (in other words, every pesticide product must be authorized before being marketed), the involvement of manufacturers in proving the safety of the products they market, and the consideration of environmental protection (Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market)
Today, it is theEuropean Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009which governs the placing on the market of plant protection products. This a priori risk assessment requires a series of tests that the manufacturer must conduct to evaluate the toxicological, environmental, and ecotoxicological properties of the pesticide substance they wish to introduce or reintroduce onto the European market.
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) evaluates the compliance of the tests conducted by the industry and their results, and carries out the risk assessment for the approval (or not) of the substance by the European Commission. Then, in the case of France, it is the National Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (Anses) that authorizes (or not) commercial products containing this substance and its co-formulants and defines possible usage conditions to ensure proper protection of users and the environment.
Finally, according to the terms of the regulation, authorization is granted if there is “no harmful effect on human or animal health” (that is to say if the risks are considered “controlled,” notably with the identification of a no-effect dose), “nor any unacceptable effect on the environment” (which does not mean that there is no effect).
Furthermore, “for security reasons” according to the regulation, the authorization of a substance can only be limited in time (up to a maximum of 15 years). The substance must be subject to re-evaluations to take into account the evolution of regulatory test guidelines as well as scientific knowledge. In summary, substances must be re-evaluated periodically and in an increasingly comprehensive manner.
A necessary but incomplete regulatory assessment
The a priori assessment is necessary because it allows, within a common European framework, to prevent the marketing of pesticides that are highly harmful to human and animal health and/or dangerous for the environment. However, it is inherently insufficient because it does not test real conditions of use and exposure.
Let’s take an example: ofrecent worksshow that half of French children aged 3.5 years have been in contact with more than 68 different pesticides in just a few months (the results were obtained through measurements in hair). However, there are no “regulatory tests” or laboratory conditions that allow reproducing this multiple and repeated exposure and studying the associated risks, in the short or long term, in the child’s life.
Oneanother exampledescribes the presence of pesticides currently in use in areas very remote from the treatments (at the North Pole, in mountainous regions, etc.), which reveals an atmospheric persistence not anticipated by the current a priori evaluation, and potentially risky for these distant ecosystems.
The current method of pesticide evaluation proves to be unresponsive to new scientific knowledge.More than ten yearswere indeed necessary for EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) to publish, in 2023, the finalized version of the guidance document dedicated to the risk assessment for bees. And this is still not being implemented… while science continues to advance in parallel.
Finally, in practice, it is easier for the authorities responsible for conformity assessment of tests to invalidate scientific data that do not comply with the regulatory framework than to challenge the entire risk assessment process.
Observations of environmental contamination and associated risks from accumulating pesticides
Once a pesticide is placed on the market, it is essential to establish studies to monitor retrospectively, under real conditions, in the short, medium, and if possible long term, the potential adverse effects not identified beforehand.
In France, environmental monitoring studies have highlighted for several decades aalmost generalized contamination of the environment, “in town” as well as “in the countryside” at the water level, ofsoilsand of air. This monitoring mainly stems from initiatives by associative and academic actors and is largely dependent on public funding. Alarge numberof thesedataisaccessibleinline.
A large body of other observational studies from academic research, conducted in the human or animal population, has led to the conclusion thatthe existence of a risk to human health, in particular for users of pesticide products and children, and ofrisks to biodiversity and its ecosystem functions, yet they themselves are essential to agricultural activities.
Also to read:
Pesticides and health: farmers have been, are, and will be the main victims of these substances
It is no longer possible to deny today that the system as it has been constructed involves the presence of uncontrolled risks for health and for ecosystems. Some are recognized in France since this consolidated scientific knowledge has helpedto the professional victims’ compensation systems, to raise awareness among users, ofpreventers (that is to say the prevention professionals, editor’s note).
A monitoring system for pesticide risks to be strengthened
As with medicines, there is a monitoring system in France for the “adverse effects” of pesticides observed retrospectively (i.e., after they have been marketed). Thisphytopharmacovigilance system(or PPV), led by Anses, is unique in Europe but remains little known and insufficiently encouraged. Its initial mission is to identify adverse effects in order to update regulatory files at the national level by proposing changes to the authorizations of pesticide products.
Environmental monitoring data and scientific literature constitute important sources of information. OneReview of 10 years of phytopharmacovigilance activitiesdemonstrates the usefulness and success of this system.
For example:
-
an unexpected contamination of untreated crops by theprosulfocarb, an active substance widely used in France as a herbicide, has led to tightening of usage conditions (in this instance, treatments were prohibited within a 1 km radius of sensitive agricultural productions ready to be harvested);
-
situations of water non-compliance (characterized by rates exceeding a reference threshold) have led to reductions of authorized usage doses ofS-metolachlor, another herbicidal substance;
-
new situations can also constitute a signal to manage, for example themeasurement in trifluoroacetic acid waters, a compound belonging to the family ofPFAS.
However, these concerning signals addressed are only the “tip of the iceberg.” In fact, this monitoring system does not identify contamination of environments or the exposure of the general population as a signal, even though these are regularly observed, thus normalizing this knowledge. The absence of a health reference threshold, often difficult and time-consuming to determine, also excludes the possibility of an alert signal. This is notably the case with the ubiquitous observation oftraces of pyrethroid insecticides in the urine of the French population for more than 10 years.
Moreover, like the prior assessment, the current monitoring system is not designed to consider the issue of exposure to mixtures. Thus, if we take the example mentioned above again, half of French children will still be exposed for a long time to more than 68 pesticides.
Finally, once identified, the signal is transmitted to the decision-making actors. But its management depends on the understanding and awareness of these actors towards this knowledge.
A trivialization of environmental contamination and human exposures that is concerning
Knowledge shows an increasing complexity of environmental contamination as well as direct and indirect risks to human health, animal health, and ecosystems. The trivialization of this knowledge is concerning. For some stakeholders, it has become a norm and leads to an increasing risk of regression in public policies.
A simplification of the procedures for prior evaluation of pesticide risks is therefore contrary to the need. It is illusory to think that the costs saved by this simplification would be greater than the costs of the multiple and complex consequences on health and the environment.
On the contrary, evolution continues in the light of new scientific knowledge and new agricultural practices; these systems of a priori and a posteriori risk assessment, as well as their convergence, are necessary to preserve the health of all.
Contributed to the writing of this article: Brice Appenzeller (Luxembourg Institute of Health, Luxembourg), Carole Bedos (UMR ECOSYS, Paris-Saclay University, INRAE, AgroParisTech, Palaiseau, France), Rémi Béranger (UMR1085 Inserm, Rennes University, Irset, Rennes, France), Aurélie Berthet (University Center of General Medicine and Public Health, Unisanté, Lausanne, Switzerland), Cécile Chevrier (UMR1085 Inserm, Rennes University, Irset, Rennes, France), Fleur Delva (U1219 Inserm, University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux Population Health Center, ISPED, Bordeaux, France), Marc Gallien (ULR 4477, Littoral Côte d’Opale University, Lille University), Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot (U1153 Inserm, U1125 INRAE, CNAM, Sorbonne Paris Nord University, CRESS, Bobigny, France), Laure Mamy (UMR ECOSYS, Paris-Saclay University, INRAE, AgroParisTech, Palaiseau, France), Christian Mougin (UMR ECOSYS, Paris-Saclay University, INRAE, AgroParisTech, Palaiseau, France), Maryline Pioz (INRAE, UR406 Bees and Environment, Avignon, France).
Expertise activity at the Anses
Expertise activity at Anses
Christian Mougin is a member of the French Academy of Agriculture. He has an expert activity at Anses.
Laure Mamy does not work for, advise, own shares in, or receive funds from any organization that could benefit from this article, and has declared no other affiliation than her research organization.
–ref. Pesticides: better assess them to better protect our health and limit contamination of air, water, and soil –https://theconversation.com/pesticides-better-assess-them-to-better-protect-our-health-and-limit-contamination-of-air-water-and-soil-282323