Ornamental plants as vectors of pesticide exposure and potential threat to biodiversity and human health.

The production of conventional ornamental plants is pesticide-intensive. We investigated whether pesticide active ingredients (AIs) are still present in ornamentals at the time of purchase and assessed their potential ecotoxicity to non-target organisms. We purchased 1000 pot plants and 237 cut flowers of different species from garden centers in Austria and Germany between 2011 and 2021 and analyzed them for up to 646 AIs. Ecotoxicological risks of AIs were assessed by calculating toxic loads for honeybees (Apis mellifera), earthworms (Eisenia fetida), birds (Passer domesticus), and mammals (Rattus norvegicus) based on the LD50 values of the detected AIs. Human health risks of AIs were assessed on the basis of the hazard statements of the Globally Harmonized System. Over the years, a total of 202 AIs were detected in pot plants and 128 AIs in cut flowers. Pesticide residues were found in 94% of pot plants and 97% of cut flowers, with cut flowers containing about twice as many AIs (11.0 ± 6.2 AIs) as pot plants (5.8 ± 4.0 AIs). Fungicides and insecticides were found most frequently. The ecotoxicity assessment showed that 47% of the AIs in pot plants and 63% of the AIs in cut flowers were moderately toxic to the considered non-target organisms. AIs found were mainly toxic to honeybees; their toxicity to earthworms, birds, and mammals was about 105 times lower. Remarkably, 39% of the plants labeled as "bee-friendly" contained AIs that were toxic to bees. More than 40% of pot plants and 72% of cut flowers contained AIs classified as harmful to human health. These results suggest that ornamental plants are vectors for potential pesticide exposure of consumers and non-target organisms in home gardens.

Toxicological Comparison of Pesticide Active Substances Approved for Conventional vs. Organic Agriculture in Europe.

There is much debate about whether the (mostly synthetic) pesticide active substances (AS) in conventional agriculture have different non-target effects than the natural AS in organic agriculture. We evaluated the official EU pesticide database to compare 256 AS that may only be used on conventional farmland with 134 AS that are permitted on organic farmland. As a benchmark, we used (i) the hazard classifications of the Globally Harmonized System (GHS), and (ii) the dietary and occupational health-based guidance values, which were established in the authorization procedure. Our comparison showed that 55% of the AS used only in conventional agriculture contained health or environmental hazard statements, but only 3% did of the AS authorized for organic agriculture. Warnings about possible harm to the unborn child, suspected carcinogenicity, or acute lethal effects were found in 16% of the AS used in conventional agriculture, but none were found in organic agriculture. Furthermore, the establishment of health-based guidance values for dietary and non-dietary exposures were relevant by the European authorities for 93% of conventional AS, but only for 7% of organic AS. We, therefore, encourage policies and strategies to reduce the use and risk of pesticides, and to strengthen organic farming in order to protect biodiversity and maintain food security.