EU pesticide risk assessors question whether growing complexity leads to better environmental protection

The European Union has developed an extensive regulatory system to assess the environmental risks of pesticides before they can be authorized for use. But does making these assessments increasingly detailed and complex necessarily lead to better environmental protection?

A new study involving researchers from Aarhus University and several European regulatory institutions, published in Environmental Sciences Europe, suggests that the answer may not be straightforward.

Researchers surveyed 114 regulatory practitioners from 31 organizations across 25 European countries, followed by a series of workshops. Their responses reveal a well-established regulatory system that is increasingly challenged by procedural complexity, growing workloads and difficulties reflecting real-world environmental conditions.

Scientific quality does not always translate into confidence in outcomes

One of the study's central findings is a distinction between practitioners' commitment to scientific quality and their confidence in the overall outcomes of the regulatory system.

While practitioners surveyed placed very high importance on scientific quality, their confidence that current assessments adequately predict environmental impacts was more moderate, averaging 3.1 out of 5 among those surveyed.

Practitioners pointed to limitations in assessing the combined effects of pesticides, long-term environmental impacts and wider landscape conditions.

"Regulatory risk assessors are rarely heard in the public debate, even though they are the people working with these assessments every day. What stands out is their strong commitment to scientific quality, ...combined with a recognition that current assessment approaches have limitations in how well they reflect real-world environmental conditions," says James H. Williams, Researcher at the Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University, and co-lead author of the study.

The findings reflect practitioners' experiences and concerns, rather than a direct evaluation of whether existing assessments adequately protect the environment.

More complexity is not necessarily the answer

The study also identifies growing operational challenges. Increasingly extensive guidance and data requirements have strengthened regulatory procedures, but they have also made assessments more resource intensive.

Practitioners report fragmented information systems, repeated assessments of existing evidence and complex methods that do not always change regulatory conclusions.

The researchers therefore recommend clearer environmental protection objectives, better sharing and reuse of data, and stronger collaboration between regulatory organizations and EU Member States.

"The solution is not simply to make assessments less detailed. It is about directing scientific effort towards the questions that are decisive for environmental protection. Better collaboration and more systematic use of existing knowledge could improve both the quality and efficiency of assessments," says Johan Axelman, Special Consultant at the Department of Agroecology.

Relevant to ongoing EU policy discussions

The findings come amid ongoing EU negotiations on changes to pesticide regulation, including the European Commission's Food and Feed Safety Simplification Omnibus proposal. By drawing directly on the experiences of regulatory practitioners, the study identifies opportunities to improve regulatory efficiency while maintaining scientific rigour and strengthening environmental protection.

The research was conducted under the European Partnership for the Assessment of Risks from Chemicals (PARC), in collaboration with the Horizon Europe projects PollinERA and SYBERAC.

About the study

Publication: Practitioners’ perspectives on EU environmental risk assessment for plant protection products

Journal: Environmental Sciences Europe

Published: 13 October 2026

Authors: James Henty Williams, Yann Devos, Annette Aldrich, Kristina Christensen, Sabine Duquesne, Vanessa Mazerolles, Natasha Mølgaard and Johan Axelman.

Read the study: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-026-01538-x

Press contact:
Jonathan Torp Henschel
Communications Advisor, Aarhus University
jth@agro.au.dk | +45 41 89 32 41

Research contact:
James Henty Williams
Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University
jhw@agro.au.dk