Scientific statement on the coverage of bats by the current pesticide risk assessment for birds and mammals

Abstract

Bats are an important group of mammals, frequently foraging in farmland and potentially exposed to pesticides. This statement considers whether the current risk assessment performed for birds and ground dwelling mammals exposed to pesticides is also protective of bats. Three main issues were addressed. Firstly, whether bats are toxicologically more or less sensitive than the most sensitive birds and mammals. Secondly, whether oral exposure of bats to pesticides is greater or lower than in ground dwelling mammals and birds. Thirdly, whether there are other important exposure routes relevant to bats. A large variation in toxicological sensitivity and no relationship between sensitivity of bats and bird or mammal test-species to pesticides could be found. In addition, bats have unique traits, such as echolocation and torpor which can be adversely affected by exposure to pesticides and which are not covered by the endpoints currently selected for wild mammal risk assessment. The current exposure assessment methodology was used for oral exposure and adapted to bats using bat-specific parameters. For oral exposure, it was concluded that for most standard risk assessment scenarios the current approach did not cover exposure of bats to pesticide residues in food. Calculations of potential dermal exposure for bats foraging during spraying operations suggest that this may be a very important exposure route. Dermal routes of exposure should be combined with inhalation and oral exposure. Based on the evidence compiled, the Panel concludes that bats are not adequately covered by the current risk assessment approach, and that there is a need to develop a bat-specific risk assessment scheme. In general, there was scarcity of data to assess the risks for bat exposed to pesticides. Recommendations for research are made, including identification of alternatives to laboratory testing of bats to assess toxicological effects.

Development of an LC-MS/MS Method for Non-Invasive Biomonitoring of Neonicotinoid and Systemic Herbicide Pesticide Residues in Bat Hair

“…Localized, "hot spot" locations, where heavy use of these persistent organic pollutants occurred, continue to be a threat to wildlife [8,11]. While this is well documented, the focus of chiropteran ecotoxicological studies continues to remain limited to these banned compounds [8,9,25].…”

Quantitative selection of focal birds and mammals in higher‐tier risk assessment: An application to rice cultivations

“…Among aerial mammals, we selected the Lesser horseshoe bat, which is present in all rice‐producing countries in Europe ( https://www.european-mammals.org/php/showmap.php?latname=Rhinolophus+hipposideros&latname2 =, accessed 15 March 2021), although the local distribution and feeding behavior of the species in rice paddies are unknown (but see Toffoli & Rughetti, 2017 for the congener Rhinolophus ferrumequinum ). Recent studies on bat distribution and feeding behavior in rice fields suggested that bats could be promising focal species for RA due to their sensitivity to management practices and peculiar pesticide exposure (Toffoli & Rughetti, 2017 , 2020 ), which is uncovered by current approaches (European Food Safety Authority [EFSA] Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues [PPR] et al, 2019 ). However, for this and other groups of mammals, focal species selection is strongly biased by the lack of extensive data on diet and feeding behavior within paddies (Butet & Delettre, 2011 ; EFSA PPR et al, 2019 ).…”

“…Recent studies on bat distribution and feeding behavior in rice fields suggested that bats could be promising focal species for RA due to their sensitivity to management practices and peculiar pesticide exposure (Toffoli & Rughetti, 2017 , 2020 ), which is uncovered by current approaches (European Food Safety Authority [EFSA] Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues [PPR] et al, 2019 ). However, for this and other groups of mammals, focal species selection is strongly biased by the lack of extensive data on diet and feeding behavior within paddies (Butet & Delettre, 2011 ; EFSA PPR et al, 2019 ). Given this uncertainty, we believe that focal species for mammals should be defined separately for the main geographic regions of European rice producers.…”

Impacts des produits phytopharmaceutiques sur la biodiversité et les services écosystémiques

“…Les modèles dits « population », « communautés » et « paysages » restent encore peu utilisés au niveau réglementaire malgré leur intérêt reconnu (Topping et Luttik, 2017 ;Topping et al, 2020;Larras et al, 2022 ). Les modèles de population spatialement explicites représentent notamment une possibilité d'évolution majeure pour tester diverses hypothèses sur la base de scénarios théoriques, mais aussi pour évaluer le risque pour les vertébrés terrestres, les amphibiens, les reptiles ou les chiroptères (Ockleford et al, 2018 ;Hernandez-Jerez et al, 2019) Enfin, le développement des travaux relatifs à l'évaluation des services écosystémiques permettrait de compléter l'analyse des impacts par une mise en évidence de leurs conséquences sur certains enjeux plus particulièrement identifiés par les acteurs, comme l'a proposé l'EFSA (Benford et al, 2016). Ce cadre d'analyse reste toutefois difficilement systématisable dans le cadre des approbations et autorisations de mise sur le marché, compte tenu de la prise en compte encore très partielle des processus écologiques sur laquelle il repose, et des difficultés posées par l'arbitrage entre services bénéficiant à des acteurs différents.…”