Neonicotinoid pesticides are complicated—and not just to pronounce. The name literally means “new nicotine-like insecticides,” for their chemical make-up resembles that of nicotine. Since their introduction in the 1990s, these pesticides have sparked both global resistance and support from citizens, farmers, scientists, and governments.
On one hand, they are widely regarded as the most effective form of pesticides. The company AgInfomatics conducted an analysis of eight major North American crops over 20 years and found that neonicotinoids produce a crop yield increase of up to 71.3 percent.
On the other hand, under the surface of productivity is a disturbing truth: these pesticides can cause the collapse of pollinator populations and environmental degradation. Governments and advocates around the world have called for strict regulation and, in some cases, outright bans on these chemicals. As of February 2024, the 22 member states of the European Union; Switzerland; and the US states of New Jersey, Maine, and Nevada have all placed severely restrictive bans on types of neonicotinoids. Many other US states have enacted less-restrictive regulations.
Yet, trade in neonicotinoids abounds, flowing from many countries that ban their use to those that do not. For instance, in 2022, the European Union exported 81,615 tons of 41 pesticides banned within the bloc; such exports are predominantly sent to lower- and middle-income countries, with Brazil as the largest recipient. Despite the environmentally damaging effects for which neonicotinoids are known, access to these chemicals may economically benefit countries, forcing a choice between environmental and economic goals.
The Global Impact of Neonicotinoids on Environmental and Human Health
Neonicotinoids are considered necessary in a multitude of agricultural sectors to successfully and cost-effectively rid fields of pests. Farmers in the United States expect a drastic increase in long-term pest resurgence in areas where neonicotinoids are outlawed due to interference in integrated pest-management programs. In response to bans on neonicotinoids, the usage of other pesticides would increase, as alternatives to neonicotinoids are up to five times weaker. A one-pound decrease in the usage of neonicotinoids on cash crops could necessitate a five-pound increase in the usage of other chemicals, causing a 375-percent increase in the rate of pesticide usage per acre. Therefore, one could argue that neonicotinoids help sustain a higher crop yield and decrease overall pesticide use.
However, the chemicals in neonicotinoids are still damaging to pollinators and ecosystems, even when used at lower levels than alternatives. The repeated use of neonicotinoids poses a catastrophic danger to bees, birds, and the environment. Infused with pesticides, the crops may produce toxic pollen that poisons pollinators and contaminates ground and surface water. Neonicotinoids target insects’ nervous systems, causing shaking, paralysis, and death. In addition to the pollinators, neonicotinoids harm plant-eating mammals and plants dependent on insect pollinators. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released an assessment in 2023 indicating that over 200 endangered animals and plants enumerated in the Endangered Species Act are in severe danger of being driven extinct due to neonicotinoids.
Neonicotinoids also jeopardize human health. The loss of biodiversity resulting from neonicotinoid use can diminish ecosystem services vital for human well-being, such as water purification, soil fertility, and climate regulation. A 2019 study also warned of the adverse health impacts of consuming fruits and vegetables containing neonicotinoids; these pesticides are absorbed into the produce through the roots, so washing before consumption is ineffective. Consumption of neonicotinoids can trigger finger tremors and memory loss, and prenatal exposure to neonicotinoids can cause heart and brain defects. These adverse effects of neonicotinoids on human health could prove highly costly.
Neonicotinoid Economics
Neonicotinoids pose not only environmental and health problems but also difficult economic tradeoffs, specifically for farmers and agricultural regulatory institutions.
The decline of pollinators due to neonicotinoid use can have adverse economic impacts on various sectors, including industries reliant on pollination services—such as fruit and vegetable production—which generate billions of dollars every year. Notably, the estimated annual contribution of pollinators to US agricultural production is US$16 billion; to global agricultural production, US$190 billion.
Yet, the market for neonicotinoids contributes more than US$4.5 billion annually to the US and Canadian economies from use in crop production alone. The US insecticide market is extremely prosperous, estimated at US$7.64 billion for 2024. That said, the United States does not require firms to register pesticides that are intended only for foreign exports; this lack of pesticide registration makes it extremely difficult to track the revenue these exports garner. Similarly, it is challenging to determine the costs of unregistered pesticides that are imported. As for North American consumers, a ban on neonicotinoids is estimated to cost over US$4 billion per year by raising food prices.
Americans need not look further than Europe to see the potential consequences of a neonicotinoid ban. Despite the economic benefits of these pesticides, the European Union chose to restrict and ban neonicotinoids in 2013 per safety recommendations by the European Food Safety Authority. Since this ban, the agricultural industry has taken an economic hit. Looking specifically at the well-reported rapeseed crop industry, the ban resulted in over 900 million euros (US$977 million) in costs between 2013 and 2017, prompting a new need for crop imports. Indeed, rapeseed crop imports increased from 63,000 tons in 2016 to 811,000 tons in 2022.
Still, Belgium, Spain, and Germany remain among the top global exporters of neonicotinoids, even though the EU ban was supported by evidence of neonicotinoids’ negative impacts. Since the first export data was not publicly available until 2021, it is unclear whether exports are significantly increasing or decreasing. For instance, France banned neonicotinoid exports upon the release of statistics related to adverse effects on the environment and human health. However, the French government approved 155 exports—totaling 7,475 tons—of banned pesticides between January and September 2022, exploiting legal loopholes. Pesticide manufacturers argue that banning EU exports of neonicotinoids would be economically devastating; however, an April 2024 report found that an export ban would have negligible adverse impacts on the EU job market.
The Future of Neonicotinoids
Current stances on the usage and export of neonicotinoids vary widely. As of 2023, the European Commission dropped its plan to review proposals to ban chemical exports from the European Union, and the United States currently evaluates neonicotinoid use on a state-by-state basis. Developing countries in South America and Africa rely on these US and EU neonicotinoid exports for agricultural benefits at the cost of human health risks. As nations continue to weigh the economic and environmental impacts of neonicotinoid usage, it is clear that regulations necessitate global cooperation to have any effect. Inconsistent regulation allows countries to export environmentally harmful products that they ban within their own borders.
In any case, there are several solutions for the United Nations to consider and promote worldwide. These include producing non-chemical alternatives that could replace 78 percent of neonicotinoids, banning the trade of neonicotinoids, and recording all transfers of neonicotinoids across borders for more thorough and accurate data.
The aforementioned efforts to impede environmental legislation and overlook threats to human health present significant obstacles in international relations. These maneuvers stem from a variety of sources: political agendas aimed at advancing broader economic or trade initiatives, interests within industries affected by proposed regulations, a perception of environmental issues as inconsequential, and a lack of data and much-needed research on neonicotinoids. Addressing the delicate balance of broader economic and ecological consequences requires a holistic approach that considers the complex interactions among agricultural production, ecosystems, and human societies.
