Human Exposure to Possibly Neurotoxic Pesticides Should Be Reduced, E.U. Safety Agency Recommends

Two neonicotinoids, a class of insecticide linked to bee declines and to disruptions to rat neurons, "may affect the developing human nervous system," the safety agency states

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Europe should slash the acceptable human exposure limits on two neonicotinoids — a class of insecticide previously linked to bee declines — says a key European Union safety agency.

In a report released today, the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA), based in Parma, Italy, says that recent research suggests that acetamiprid and imidacloprid “may affect the developing human nervous system”.

The European Commission — which requested that the EFSA look at a potential link to human health in the first place — now has to decide what action to take on the basis of the agency’s recommendation.


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.


Neonicotinoid chemicals have been a controversial subject this year, after the EFSA in January linked imidacloprid and two other ‘neo-nics’ to declines in bee health. Debate over the chemicals’ role in declines in insect pollinators that had been on-going in the scientific literature jumped into the mainstream (see ‘Europe debates risk to bees’).

That January assessment relating to bee health was of three neonicotinoids deemed a priority: thiamethoxam, clothianidin and imidacloprid. Assessment of the impact on bees of two other compounds — acetamiprid and thiacloprid — is currently on hold while that work continues.

But the EFSA is also looking at the impact of neonicotinoids on humans. These chemicals work as agonists of insect nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, but their effect on mammals has been unclear. The EFSA explicitly cites a paper from last year by a Tokyo-based team as shaping its thinking.

That paper, published in PLoS ONE by Junko Kimura-Kuroda of the Toyko Metropolitan Institute of Medical Science, and colleagues, found that both acetamiprid and imidacloprid triggered similar effects in cultures of rat neurons as are seen with nicotine. The authors point out that as nicotine may disrupt brain development in humans, so neonicotinoids “may adversely affect human health, especially the developing brain”.

After reviewing this and other evidence, the EFSA recommends that various acceptable exposure levels to these two chemicals be substantially lowered. Although it notes that the evidence available “has limitations” and recommending further research, the agency says that all neonicotinoids should now be assessed for their potential developmental neurotoxicity.

This article is reproduced with permission from the magazine Nature. The article was first published on December 17, 2013.

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