E.U. Expected to Vote on Pesticide Ban after Major Scientific Review

A survey of more than 1,500 studies concludes neonicotinoids harm bees

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

In a long-awaited assessment, the European Union’s food-safety agency has concluded that three controversial neonicotinoid insecticides pose a high risk to wild bees and honeybees. The findings by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in Parma, Italy, raise the chances that the EU will soon move to ban all uses of the insecticides on outdoor crops.

In 2013, the EU prohibited applications of the three chemicals on crops attractive to bees — such as sunflowers, oilseed rape and maize — after an EFSA assessment raised concern about the insecticides’ effects. Since then, researchers have amassed more evidence of harm to bees, and the European Commission last year proposed banning all outdoor uses, while still allowing the pesticides in greenhouses. The latest EFSA assessment strengthens the scientific basis for the proposal, says Anca Păduraru, a European Commission spokeswoman for public health and food safety. EU member states could vote on the issue as soon as 22 March.

Neonicotinoids (often abbreviated to neonics) are highly toxic to insects, causing paralysis and death by interfering with the central nervous system. Unlike pesticides which remain on plant surfaces, neonicotinoids are taken up throughout the plant – in the roots, stems, leaves, flowers, pollen and nectar.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The EFSA assessment covered the three neonicotinoids of greatest concern for bee health — clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam. The agency considered more than 1,500 studies, including all the relevant published scientific literature, and data from academia, chemical companies, national authorities, NGOs and beekeeper associations. The assessment found that the three chemicals posed at least one type of high risk to bees in all outdoor uses.

The agency found that foraging bees are exposed to harmful levels of pesticide residues in pollen and nectar of treated fields and contaminated areas nearby, as well as in drifting dust. It also concluded, on the basis of more limited evidence, that neonicotinoids can sometimes persist and accumulate in the soil, and so can affect generations of planted crops and the bees that forage on them.

"EFSA's advice is often criticized by interested parties such as NGOs and companies, but this is a good demonstration of how EFSA gives scientifically sound and impartial advice," says José Tarazona, head of the agency's pesticides unit.

A spokesperson for Syngenta, which produces neonicotinoids, says that the EFSA's conclusions are overly conservative. "When regulators make decisions about crop-protection products, what should matter is science, data and that the processes in place are respected and that the public interest is served," the spokesperson says. "Any further restrictions based on this report would be ill-conceived."

EU member states were scheduled to vote on the proposal to outlaw outdoor uses on 13 December, but postponed it partly because many wanted to wait until the EFSA completed its evaluation.

Member states plan to discuss the EFSA assessment at a meeting of the Commission's Plant Animal Food and Feed Standing Committee sometime in March, says the EC’s Păduraru. "The protection of bees is an important issue for the commission since it concerns biodiversity, food production and the environment."

This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on February 28, 2018.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe