A large-scale study assessed the level of exposure to pesticides, using wristbands worn by farmers and citizens living close to fields. The results show the important exposure to pesticides via pathways other than food. These are not included in the current risk assessment. A total of 173 pesticides were detected, with a median [1] of 20 different ones per sample. For conventional farmers, it was even worse, with a median of 36. Many of these pesticides should have been banned long ago. These confronting results illustrate that the protection against pesticides urgently needs to be improved, instead of weakened as proposed by the European Commission in their Omnibus proposal.
Citizens are exposed to pesticides through multiple routes. Risk assessment focuses mostly on exposure through food, while long-term exposure through inhalation and skin absorption is neglected. This while studies and researchers indicate that non-dietary exposure might be as important, or could be even more important. This study confirms that pesticides are widespread in our environment, and that farmers and citizens living near fields are particularly exposed.
The main objectives of the research were to assess if there are differences in exposure between the different groups of citizens, and which mixtures of pesticides are mainly found. Across 10 European countries, 641 citizens participated in the study, carried out within the Horizon 2020 SPRINT project. [2] They were asked to wear silicone wristbands continuously for 7 days, during the 2021 growing season. Afterwards, the wristbands were analysed for 193 different pesticides, of which 173 were encountered on the wristbands. The participants provided information regarding their socio-demographics, age and height and lifestyle, such as time spent indoors, dietary habits, pets, professional and home use of pesticides.
Key results of the study:
- A total of 173 different pesticides/metabolites were detected on the wristbands. All wristbands contained a mixture of pesticide residues (at least 2 substances detected)
- A median of 20 different substances was found over all samples
- On wristbands worn by conventional farmers, 9-74 (median 36) pesticide residues were found. For organic farmers, 8-66 (median 20) pesticides were detected.
- Citizens living in the vicinity of treated fields had 3-66 (median 20) pesticides on their wristbands.
- Citizens living further from fields, representing consumers/the general population, had 2-52 (median 17) pesticides per wristband.
- Several fungicides and herbicides showed higher detection frequencies for farmers in conventional fields. On the other hand, insecticides like permethrin and chlorpyrifos showed similar detection frequencies across the different groups, demonstrating their widespread transportation. Working in agriculture and pesticide application were important predictors of pesticide detection. Furthermore, the presence of pets at home, especially those spending time outside and carrying pesticides in their fur into the home, was a significant predictor of exposure.
- Azoxystrobin, Boscalid, Fludioxonil, Dicloran, Propiconazole and Difenoconazole were among the most detected fungicides on the wristbands among all groups.
- Terbutryn, Terbuthylazine, Diflufenican, Diuron and Chlorpropham were among the herbicides most detected across all groups.
- Permethrin, Chlorpyrifos, Piperonyl butoxide, DDT, Fipronil and Cypermethrin were among the most detected insecticides across all groups.
- Farmers from conventional fields had generally higher pesticide concentrations on their wristbands than organic farmers, than citizens living close to fields and than consumers (general population). Citizens close to fields had often higher concentrations than the general population. For cypermethrin and permethrin, values up to 10 999 μg/kg and 47 214 μg/kg were measured, respectively. For the remaining 13 pesticides, concentrations were in the range of 0,0001 μg/kg and 5000 μg/kg. Concentrations varied significantly by study location.
- The study showed systematic co-occurrence of multiple pesticides, with permethrin, chlorpyrifos, DDT transformation products and piperonyl butoxide appearing often (in over 70% of wristbands) together in all countries and groups. This indicates the widespread contamination with these pesticides.
- The study shows a clear contribution to overall exposure from non-dietary routes.
The researchers recommend to:
- Assess possible additive and synergistic effects of prevalent mixtures.
- Take into account the findings in the development of enhanced regulatory measures, which are crucial for mitigating the risks linked to pesticide exposure and safeguarding human health and ecosystems
- Take into account the most prevalent current-used pesticides to support ongoing initiatives aimed at the transition to more sustainable agricultural practices
Shortcomings in the pesticide legislation
The high exposure of farmers and other citizens to toxic pesticides shows failures in the implementation of pesticide legislation and the authorisation processes. Citizens and the environment are exposed to highly toxic pesticides, which have been banned for many years, but persist in our environment. For example:
- Dicloran has been banned in the EU for many years, and is classified as ‘fatal in contact with skin and if swallowed’, as well as harmful to organs through prolonged exposure.
- Chlorpropham, banned in the EU since 2019, is suspected of causing cancer and may cause damage to organs.
- Permethrin, a neurotoxic pyrethroid, has been banned for pesticide use since 2003. Chlorpyrifos, another neurotoxic (organophosphate), banned years overdue in 2020, can harm children’s brain development and function of their hormonal system.
- DDT, with far-reaching detrimental impacts on biodiversity and human health, and hormone disrupting, neurotoxic and carcinogenic properties, has been banned in the 80s.
- Fipronil, a neurotoxic insecticide highly toxic to bees, was banned in 2013. It causes damage to organs, is toxic if inhaled, swallowed or in contact with skin.
- Also Propiconazole, belonging to the group of problematic triazole fungicides, is banned in the EU, and classified as reprotoxic (may damage the unborn child), harmful if swallowed and ‘may cause an allergic skin reaction’.
- Diuron is presumed to be carcinogenic, and may cause damage to organs. It is banned in the EU as a pesticide since 2020.
On top of that, among the most detected pesticides are many still approved substances which should have been banned already according to EU Law, due to their problematic properties, but which policy makers have failed to ban:
- Already in 2015, the Commission’s screening study demonstrated that boscalid fulfilled the criteria to be an endocrine disruptor [3], and therefore should have been banned.
- Fludioxonil, a PFAS pesticide, was classified as an endocrine disruptor in 2024. It is also toxic to the liver and kidney, and very toxic to aquatic life. It should have been banned, but Member States have been blocking this.
- Difenoconazole, another triazole fungicide, is harmful when swallowed and suspected of causing cancer. It is classified as a 'candidate for substitution', and should therefore have been phased out by Member States.
- Terbuthylazine is harmful when swallowed, and may cause damage to organs with prolonged exposure.
- Diflufenican is a PFAS pesticide, source of TFA, highly toxic to aquatic life and extremely persistent in the environment. While a candidate for substitution, its approval period has been prolonged repeatedly without meaningful justification since December 2018.
- Cypermethrin is a pyrethroid insecticide highly toxic to bees and aquatic organisms, and suspected to disrupt the human endocrine system. The Court of Justice of the EU concluded that the European Commission acted unlawfully by reapproving cypermethrin in 2021. In particular, the Court criticised the fact that no risk assessment of the long term toxicity of cypermethrin was carried out. [4]
The results also show the fundamental lack of implementation of the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive [5], which requires that measures are taken to avoid citizens from being directly exposed to pesticides.
Implement pesticide legislation and address loopholes in pesticide risk assessment
The need to improve pesticide risk assessment has been repeatedly called for by experts, and has been central in recommendations of key EU research projects focusing on pesticides, such as the EU Sprint project. [6]
The failures of the current system, illustrated above, are in clear conflict with the Commission’s current proposal for a “Food and feed safety” omnibus, which undermines current pesticide authorisation and risk assessment [7]. For example, the proposal, strongly criticized by many scientists of countries and research groups throughout Europe [8], introduces the unlimited approval of pesticides as the default, and removes the requirement to always use the most recent science when authorising pesticide products at national level. These proposals, rather than closing the loopholes in risk assessment, erode protection of soil, biodiversity, ecosystems and citizens’ health, while further delaying the implementation of available alternatives. They also go directly against the repeated, loud demands expressed by EU citizens, including two EU Citizens Initiatives. [9]
As again illustrated by the study described above, it is essential that harmful pesticides are effectively removed from the market, and do not reach the market any longer. The major shortcomings in pesticide risk assessment and implementation of legislation should be addressed, as already requested by the European Parliament in 2019. [10]
While the results of this study are highly concerning, another model of agriculture exists, based on preventative measures such as crop rotation, the use of more resistant varieties, fostering restoration of soil health and natural pest control, and many more approaches used in the frame of Integrated Pest Management (IPM). [11] Conventional farmers implementing high-level IPM manage to reduce pesticides by more than 80%, while remaining profitable. A recent pilot study on 9 cropping systems during 10 years in France, shows that pesticide-free arable farming is profitable, when implemented correctly. [12] IPM being knowledge-intensive, it requires public support, in order to disseminate best practices and knowledge. This is mandatory for Member States to do under the Directive on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides (dir. 2009/128/EC) but it is poorly to non-implemented.
Read more: Figueiredo et al. (2025) - Non-dietary personal pesticide exposure using silicone wristbands across 10 European countries and fact sheet
Notes:
[1] Explanatory note: The median is the middle point in a dataset: half of the data points are smaller than the median and half of the data points are larger. To find the median, data points are arranged from smallest to largest. If the number of data points is odd, the median is the middle data point in the list. The median is different from the average: for the average the sum of all data are divided by the number of data. The median therefore can give sometimes a better image of what is ‘typical’, as outliers do not distort the number.
[2] EU SPRINT Project, SPRINT Project Policy Recommendations, SPRINT Project Key - Key Messages
[3] PAN Europe letter to the Members of the SCoPAFF Committee, 8 December 2025 - Screening of available evidence on chemical substances for the identification of endocrine disruptors according to different options in the context of an Impact Assessment. Contract SANTE/2015/E3/SI2.706218
[5] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02009L0128...
[6] SPRINT Project - key recommendations
[7] Food and feed safety omnibus’ threatens EU pesticide rules
[8] Science Journal - Policy Forum: EU Omnibus proposal increases pesticide risks
Scientific Statement on Pesticides in the Omnibus
Scientific assessment slams food and feed safety omnibus proposal | PAN Europe
The Lawfulness of the Planned Amendments through the „Food and Feed Safety Omnibus“
Omnibus X : Lettre ouverte au Président de la République Française | Framaforms.org
[9] Citizens’ Demands for Pesticide Reduction in Europe
[10] European Parliament resolution of 16 January 2019 on the Union’s authorisation procedure for pesticides (2018/2153(INI)), PAN Europe - Gaps in the EU Pesticide Authorisation
A review of implementation four years after European Parliament recommendations
IPMWORKS project. Reducing pesticide use is a must for the future
INRAE (2022). Protect crops by increasing plant diversity in agricultural areas
Wäckers. From Pesticide Addiction to Ecological Integrated Pest Management
[12] INRAE (2026) A 10-year experimental study in France shows the potential of pesticide-free agricultural production, Ortiz-Vallejo et al. (2026) Pesticide-free agriculture: Is a third way possible besides organic and conventional agriculture?
