The use of pesticides should be critically considered: the emblematic case of neonicotinoids

International audienceResearch on pesticides and their impacts has increased in recent decades because of pollution and impacts generated by pesticides for the environment. Experimental data can be interpreted differently, depending on experimental design, sources (for example, unpublished studies and/or peer-reviewed studies), values and conflicts of interest. This can then influence decisions made on a scientific basis, or simply reduce the credibility of science. Is destroying biodiversity and ecosystems a sustainable strategy? Because research on neonicotinoid insecticides is one of the best documented, because these relatively new insecticides are used prophylactically (preventive treatment) and not as a last resort, neonicotinoids illustrate the issue of mass use of pesticides as opposed to sustainability. Science is often a contradictory process where data must be accumulated before a general consensus can be reached. Several meta-analysis are presented on these insecticides. They illustrate the impacts of neonicotinoids on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Paradoxically, these ecosystem services include the services needed for agriculture (for example, soil quality and pollination). Therefore, the current use of these pesticides needs to be critically examined. The assessment should not be limited to private and short-term benefits, but also to a more comprehensive approach which includes increasing pest resistance, limited resilience of the nature, and quality and richness of our environment. Agronomic alternatives must be favoured because they have proved their effectiveness in a vast majority of cases. In addition, it seems increasingly risky to claim that what destroys biodiversity would have no effect on our health