February 13, 2025

expert reaction to systematic review of studies on impacts of global pesticide use on biodiversity

A systematic review published in Nature Communications looks at the impact of pesticide use on biodiversity.

Prof Oliver Jones, Professor of Chemistry, RMIT University, said:

“There is a lot to like in this study. While the authors have not undertaken any new experiments, they have synthesised data from the existing scientific literature to make new deductions about the unintended effects of pesticides. They look at many different species worldwide and it’s great to see that they used environmentally realistic pesticide concentrations in the calculations

“While the work has generated some useful insights, there are some points to keep in mind.

“The word pesticide is a catch-all term for any substance used to control a species humans don’t want to be in a particular space. There are several subgroups: Herbicides are used to control plants, insecticides are used to control insects, etc. Because pesticides are designed to control classes of organisms, the fact that non-target species within those classes may also be affected is not new. While the study highlights negative impacts on over 800 non-target species, data was only available for these. Other species may also be impacted, but we don’t have the data on how.

“There are also many, many pesticides in use, and some have much worse unintended effects than others. The types of pesticides and how they are used also differ between countries. Compounds used in one country are banned in others, making direct comparisons difficult.

“Also, as the authors themselves point out, pesticide use is essential to modern agriculture; we could not feed the world’s population without them.

“The above non-withstanding, the central tenet of this work—that if we are serious about reducing biodiversity loss, we need to be careful about how we use pesticides and look for alternative methods where possible—is very sensible. For example, the data from this work might be used to identify the compounds with the largest non-intended effects and remove them from common use in favour of those with the fewest non-intended effects.”

Prof Toby Bruce, Professor of Insect Ecology, Keele University, said:

“Increasing evidence of off-target effects of conventional pesticides means there is an urgent need to research and deliver alternative, better targeted approaches. Since the Green Revolution, farmers have been heavily reliant on pesticides for protecting their crops because many of the high yielding crop varieties we have today were developed as part of a package together with pesticides.”

Dr Antonis Myridakis, Lecturer in Environmental Sciences, from Brunel University of London.

“The study by Wan et al presents a comprehensive synthesis of the negative impacts of pesticides on a wide range of non-target organisms, incorporating data from over 1,700 studies and is methodologically sound. It is a quite extensive evaluation of pesticide effects on biodiversity. The findings reinforce existing concerns that pesticides have far-reaching consequences for non-target species, including plants, animals, fungi, and microbes, thereby contributing significantly to biodiversity loss.

“The main conclusions are that pesticide exposure leads to reduced growth, reproduction and behavioural changes in a broad spectrum of species. However, while the study provides compelling evidence of harm to over 800 species, it does not comprehensively address the potential impacts on the vast number of other species not included in the dataset. Therefore, there is the possibility that the true extent of pesticide harm is even greater than reported. Another limitation is the reliance on available published data, which may introduce publication bias since studies reporting significant negative effects are more likely to be published than those finding minimal or no effects.

“From a policy perspective, these findings highlight the need for stricter regulations on pesticide use and a broader implementation of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies. It also underscores the necessity for improved risk assessment methodologies that incorporate ecosystem-wide effects rather than focusing solely on a few model species.

“Overall, this study provides strong evidence that pesticides pose a significant and widespread threat to biodiversity. While it does not address every possible ecological consequence, its findings are a crucial step toward informing policymakers, farmers, and the public about the hidden costs of pesticide use.”

Prof Tom Oliver, Professor of Applied Ecology, and Associate Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research (Environment), University of Reading:

“Understanding the effects of the pesticides on wild species is hugely important. In combination with habitat loss and extreme weather from climate change, these chemicals are thought to be an important factor behind the devastation of our native biodiversity. Importantly, this study has corrected for ‘field-realistic’ levels of exposure. Many industrial chemicals are toxic if poured directly over animals and plants, but the important question is whether the concentration with which pesticides are applied from crops sprayers is damaging. The study finds that a whole range of ‘non-target’ organisations, i.e. those that aren’t pests, but are valuable plants, insects and fungi, are being impacted by these pesticides. Pesticides may be fatal to our native wildlife or they can have sub-lethal effects, such as disrupting growth, reproduction and behaviour (for example, the ability of bees to navigate effectively). The proliferation of certain harm causing human-made chemicals, which escape, or are purposely introduced, into the natural environment is a ticking time-bomb for the health of our ecosystems. It is fortunate that the UK Government (in the recently published 2025 National Risk Register) have now recognised pollution and environmental degradation as a ‘chronic risk’ faced by the UK.”

‘Pesticides have negative effects on non-target organisms’ by Nian-Feng Wan et al. was published in Nature Communications at 10:00am UK time on Thursday 13 February 2025. 

DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-56732-x

Declared interests

Dr Antonis Myridakis: Nothing to declare.

Prof. Tom Oliver: employed by the University of Reading and has received funding from NERC, Green Finance Institute and BBSRC to develop methodologies for assessing nature-related risks.  He was previously seconded with the Government Office for Science to work with UK Cabinet Office on chronic and acute risks faced by the UK, and was seconded to Defra to help design their Systems Research Programme. He is lead educator on a Future Learn course “Using systems thinking to tackle the climate and biodiversity crisis” and is author of the book “The Self Delusion: The Surprising Science of Our Connection to Each Other and the Natural World” published by Weidenfeld & Nicholson. Oliver sits on the Food Standards Agency science council and is a member of the Office for Environmental Protection expert college.

Prof Oliver Jones: Although it was over 15 years ago, I have worked and published papers with Dr David J. Spurgeon, who is one of the authors of this paper. I also conduct research on environmental contaminants, including pesticides. I have received funding from the Environment Protection Authority Victoria (https://www.epa.vic.gov.au/) and various water utilities for research on environmental pollution