An update of the Worldwide Integrated Assessment (WIA) on systemic insecticides. Part 2: impacts on organisms and ecosystems

New information on the lethal and sublethal effects of neonicotinoids and fipronil on organisms is presented in this review, complementing the previous WIA in 2015. The high toxicity of these systemic insecticides to invertebrates has been confirmed and expanded to include more species and compounds. Most of the recent research has focused on bees and the sublethal and ecological impacts these insecticides have on pollinators. Toxic effects on other invertebrate taxa also covered predatory and parasitoid natural enemies and aquatic arthropods. Little, while not much new information has been gathered on soil organisms. The impact on marine coastal ecosystems is still largely uncharted. The chronic lethality of neonicotinoids to insects and crustaceans, and the strengthened evidence that these chemicals also impair the immune system and reproduction, highlights the dangers of this particular insecticidal classneonicotinoids and fipronil. , withContinued large scale – mostly prophylactic – use of these persistent organochlorine pesticides has the potential to greatly decreasecompletely eliminate populations of arthropods in both terrestrial and aquatic environments. Sublethal effects on fish, reptiles, frogs, birds and mammals are also reported, showing a better understanding of the mechanisms of toxicity of these insecticides in vertebrates, and their deleterious impacts on growth, reproduction and neurobehaviour of most of the species tested. This review concludes with a summary of impacts on the ecosystem services and functioning, particularly on pollination, soil biota and aquatic invertebrate communities, thus reinforcing the previous WIA conclusions (van der Sluijs et al. 2015)

Engineered symbionts to safeguard honeybee health and their pollination services: A response

Response to the article "Engineered symbionts activate honey bee immunity and limit pathogens".Sean P. Leonard, J. Elijah Powell, Jiri Perutka, Peng Geng, Luke C. Heckmann, Richard D. Horak, Bryan W. Davies, Andrew D. Ellington, Jeffrey E. Barrick, Nancy A. Moran.Science 31 Jan 2020: Vol. 367, Issue 6477, pp. 573-576.https://science.sciencemag.org/content/367/6477/573/tab-e-lettersInternational audienceLeonard et al. (1) presented an interesting approach to limit the impact of pathogens on honeybees by stimulating immunity via engineered symbionts. The urgency to safeguard pollinator services is undoubted. Massive declines in bees, insects in general, pose major concerns for ecosystem stability and food production.However, we see potential pitfalls in such technology driven approaches.Leonard et al. attribute high honeybee colony mortality to the parasitic mite Varroa destructor via synergistic interactions with RNA viruses. However, Varroa is only a significant concern for honeybees. The consensus is that pollinator declines are driven primarily by habitat loss and exposure to pesticides (2, 3). The proposed measures will do nothing to aid other insects delivering the bulk of pollination (e.g. (4)).We caution the release of genetically modified organisms into bees and their environments and identify three main risks:1. Potential spill over and unknown impact to the health of wild bees. The benefit to bees is thus uncertain.2. Unpredictable effects for biodiversity, ecosystems and human health: It is impossible to exclude that bacteria with modified genes may cross the species borders through horizontal gene transfer to other microorganisms in the microbiome of bees, other invertebrates, and vertebrates including humans.3. Potential regulatory and economic consequences: What would happen if traces of GMOs are detected in honey or bee products? Labeling of honey and other bee products as GMOs may be required. This would represent a major blow to beekeepers, a commercial and image disaster.Efficient Varroa control methods or other hive management practices are available to reduce the impact of viruses and colony losses, without the risk of spilling genetically modified organisms.We propose a discussion to evaluate possible pathways seeking solutions for the pollinator crisis. Broader approaches embracing conservation, socioeconomics and ethical aspects are required.References and Notes:1. S. P. Leonard et al., Science 367, 573-576 (2020).2. S. G. Potts et al., 25, 345-353 (2010).3. D. Goulson, E. Nicholls, C. Botías, E. L. Rotheray, 347, 1255957 (2015).4. R. Winfree, N. M. Williams, H. Gaines, J. S. Ascher, C. Kremen, 45, 793-802 (2008).Acknowledgments: N.a.Funding: N.a.Author contributions: EM wrote the first draft which all authors the edited

Biomarkers of Human Exposure to Neonicotinoid Insecticides - Two Recent International Cooperative Studies

International audienc

Conclusions of the Worldwide Integrated Assessment on the risks of neonicotinoids and fipronil to biodiversity and ecosystem functioning : Environmental Science and Pollution Research

The side effects of the current global use of pesticides on wildlife, particularly at higher levels of biological organization: populations, communities and ecosystems, are poorly understood (Köhler and Triebskorn 2013). Here, we focus on one of the problematic groups of agrochemicals, the systemic insecticides fipronil and those of the neonicotinoid family. The increasing global reliance on the partly prophylactic use of these persistent and potent neurotoxic systemic insecticides has raised concerns about their impacts on biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and ecosystem services provided by a wide range of affected species and environments. The present scale of use, combinedwith the properties of these compounds, has resulted in widespread contamination of agricultural soils, freshwater resources, wetlands, non-target vegetation and estuarine and coastal marine systems, which means that many organisms inhabiting these habitats are being repeatedly and chronically exposed to effective concentrations of these insecticides

Conclusions of the Worldwide Integrated Assessment on the risks of neonicotinoids and fipronil to biodiversity and ecosystem functioning

The side effects of the current global use of pesticides on wildlife, particularly at higher levels of biological organization: populations, communities and ecosystems, are poorly understood (Köhler and Triebskorn 2013). Here, we focus on one of the problematic groups of agrochemicals, the systemic insecticides fipronil and those of the neonicotinoid family. The increasing global reliance on the partly prophylactic use of these persistent and potent neurotoxic systemic insecticides has raised concerns about their impacts on biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and ecosystem services provided by a wide range of affected species and environments. The present scale of use, combinedwith the properties of these compounds, has resulted in widespread contamination of agricultural soils, freshwater resources, wetlands, non-target vegetation and estuarine and coastal marine systems, which means that many organisms inhabiting these habitats are being repeatedly and chronically exposed to effective concentrations of these insecticides