Role of science and scientists in public environmental policy debates: The case of EU agrochemical and Nature Restoration Regulations

Abstract Halting biodiversity loss, mitigating global warming and maintaining the long‐term viability of rural and urban areas requires urgent policy action. However, environmental policies often trigger resistance and highly polarised public debates, with some actors employing pseudo‐scientific claims. This raises concern about the increasing impact of misinformation on policymaking. Here, we analyse the role of science and scientists in the public debate around two pieces of legislation that were proposed in 2022 by the European Commission as part of the Green Deal, namely the Nature Restoration Regulation (NRR) and the Sustainable Use Regulation (SUR) of plant protection products. First, we examine key claims against these two legislative proposals and contrast them with scientific evidence. We show that these claims fail to consider ample scientific evidence that restoring nature and reducing the use of agrochemicals are essential for maintaining long‐term agricultural production and enhancing food security. Critics further failed to acknowledge that the NRR and SUR may generate new employment opportunities and stimulate innovation, with high return rates and multiple beneficiaries across society, fostering a transition to sustainable production and consumption models. Second, we examine how the publication of an open letter, signed by 6000 scientists, may have influenced the public debate. We contrast the role that scientific evidence played in the fate of the NRR, which was adopted, against the fate of the SUR, which was rejected by the European Parliament. We draw lessons from these two cases that illustrate the global tension between environmental protection and economic‐driven interests to spread misinformation. We argue that scientists should play an important role in making scientific evidence more accessible and available to the general public and policymakers for informed decision‐making. We recommend that scientists be proactive and unbiased in providing information and data and that policymakers use scientific evidence and engage scientists in developing much needed, well informed environmental policies. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
People and Nature
Published
2025-06-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.70064
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Environmental Education and Sustainability
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.84

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Role of science and scientists in public environmental policy debates: The case of EU agrochemical and Nature Restoration Regulations

Nicole M. van Dam, Aletta Bonn, Nuria Selva, Guy Pe’er et al.
2 citations
People and Nature
Environmental Education and Sustainability
4.84
article

Role of science and scientists in public environmental policy debates: The case of EU agrochemical and Nature Restoration Regulations

Nicole M. van Dam, Aletta Bonn, Nuria Selva, Guy Pe’er, Marine Robuchon, Laura Bosco, Emma Ladouceur, Camino Liquete, Sebastian Lakner, Daniel Hering, Elizabeth A. Finch, Laura López‐Hoffman, Martin Friedrichs‐Manthey, Bernd Hansjürgens, Isabel Sousa‐Pinto, Anni Arponen, Heidi Wittmer, Clélia Sirami, Gregor Hagedorn, Josef Settele, Helge Bruelheide, Jana Kachler, Irina Herzon
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Abstract Halting biodiversity loss, mitigating global warming and maintaining the long‐term viability of rural and urban areas requires urgent policy action. However, environmental policies often trigger resistance and highly polarised public debates, with some actors employing pseudo‐scientific claims. This raises concern about the increasing impact of misinformation on policymaking. Here, we analyse the role of science and scientists in the public debate around two pieces of legislation that were proposed in 2022 by the European Commission as part of the Green Deal, namely the Nature Restoration Regulation (NRR) and the Sustainable Use Regulation (SUR) of plant protection products. First, we examine key claims against these two legislative proposals and contrast them with scientific evidence. We show that these claims fail to consider ample scientific evidence that restoring nature and reducing the use of agrochemicals are essential for maintaining long‐term agricultural production and enhancing food security. Critics further failed to acknowledge that the NRR and SUR may generate new employment opportunities and stimulate innovation, with high return rates and multiple beneficiaries across society, fostering a transition to sustainable production and consumption models. Second, we examine how the publication of an open letter, signed by 6000 scientists, may have influenced the public debate. We contrast the role that scientific evidence played in the fate of the NRR, which was adopted, against the fate of the SUR, which was rejected by the European Parliament. We draw lessons from these two cases that illustrate the global tension between environmental protection and economic‐driven interests to spread misinformation. We argue that scientists should play an important role in making scientific evidence more accessible and available to the general public and policymakers for informed decision‐making. We recommend that scientists be proactive and unbiased in providing information and data and that policymakers use scientific evidence and engage scientists in developing much needed, well informed environmental policies. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

People and NatureVol. 7(8)
University of the Philippines Los Baños (PH), Museum für Naturkunde (DE), University of Helsinki (FI), Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (ES), Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (DE), University of Arizona (US), University of Turku (FI), Universidade do Porto (PT), University of Prince Edward Island (CA), Helsinki Institute of Physics (FI), German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (DE), Institut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement (FR), Estación Biológica de Doñana (ES), Leibniz Institute of Vegetable and Ornamental Crops (DE), Joint Research Centre (IT), Institute of Nature Conservation (PL), Finnish Museum of Natural History (FI), Génétique Physiologie et Systèmes d'Elevage (FR), Dynamiques et écologie des paysages agriforestiers (FR), University of Rostock (DE), University of Duisburg-Essen (DE), Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (DE), Friedrich Schiller University Jena (DE), Universidad de Huelva (ES), Leipzig University (DE)
European Commission, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Academy of Finland, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Koneen Säätiö, Deutsches Zentrum für integrative Biodiversitätsforschung Halle-Jena-Leipzig, HORIZON EUROPE Framework Programme
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Environmental Education and Sustainability
4.84
DOIOpen Access PDFOpenAlex
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.