EP 34 - Pesticides Callout!

🎙️ We’re back with Episode 34 of Parkinson Weekly, hosted by Prof. Bas Bloem.

In Episode 34 of Parkinson Weekly, “Pesticides Callout!”, Prof. Bas Bloem delivers a powerful call to action regarding proposed changes to European pesticide regulations.

Prof. Bloem explores concerns surrounding the current omnibus proposal, particularly the possibility that real-world evidence may no longer be considered when assessing the long-term safety of pesticides once they have been approved for market use. Drawing on decades of research into Parkinson’s disease and environmental risk factors, he explains why ongoing scrutiny of pesticides and other chemicals remains essential, especially as new evidence emerges from real-world exposure.

The episode examines the limitations of current testing methods, the importance of post-approval monitoring, and recent research linking environmental exposures to an increased risk of neurodegenerative disease. Prof. Bloem also discusses the need to support greener agricultural alternatives and questions proposals that could extend the use of chemicals already identified as harmful to human health.

This thought-provoking episode highlights the intersection of environmental policy, public health, and Parkinson’s disease, while urging policymakers to prioritise long-term population health when making regulatory decisions.

Tune-in now to hear why Prof. Bloem believes real-world evidence must remain at the heart of efforts to protect future generations from potential environmental contributors to neurodegenerative disease.

Have a question you’d like Bas to answer in a future episode? Email us at parkinsonweekly@gmail.com – we’d love to hear from you.

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:00

Hello, my name is Baas Bloem. I am a professor of movement disorder neurology at the Rudboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen and head of the Center of Expertise for Parkinson's Disease. This video is a call to action to brave politicians and decision makers in Europe in regards to the upcoming omnibus where people are discussing new regulatory actions in relation to the use of pesticides in Europe. What is being proposed at the moment comes from an initiative where people want to simplify regulatory actions, and in many ways it's hard to be against. Less rules, simpler actions are always preferable over complex regulatory actions. When it comes to the current proposal around pesticides, there are a number of concerns. One particular concern is that although the omnibus is still being amended and we don't know the final contours, one of the elements that appears to be in there is that real-life evidence will no longer be taken into account after certain pesticides have been allowed onto the market. And to my mind, that is a major, major problem. First, I have published quite extensively with respected colleagues in the field, and other people agree with my opinion, is that the current admission criteria based upon which pesticides are now allowed onto the market are not waterproof when it comes to determining the risk specifically for Parkinson's disease and related neurodegenerative disorders. The reason is that these experiments don't specifically look at cell death in the brains of exposed animals for damage in areas related to Parkinson's. They do not specifically incorporate the genetic risk, which heightens the risk of subsequent damage by a certain pesticide. They look only at isolated compounds instead of the cocktails to which we are exposed in real life. And routes of exposure, such as inhalation, are insufficiently accommodated. That's not to say that any of the currently used pesticides are therefore a cause of Parkinson's. I don't know that. I do feel that any chemical that's being released onto the market should be tested adequately according to how we know that Parkinson's may arise secondary to toxicity from environmental exposure. Now suppose that first step is adequately being taken. Then we know that even after a chemical compound has been released onto the market into the real world, compounds may behave differently. We know this from drugs. A notorious example is of course softanon, the drug thalidomide, the drug that caused severe developmental abnormalities in babies, even though initially in the trials it seemed to be safe. It includes different types of pesticides together, it includes heavy metals, solvents, air pollution, the genetic underlying risk. And again, from the field of medicine, we know that drugs that survive phase three clinical trials may still show toxicity in real life. So I think it is critical that we continue to include evidence from the real world even after pesticides have been admitted to the market. An example is a recent study. I'm just giving this as an example, paper by Hassan et al. in molecular neurodegeneration published in 2026, where they looked at a particular pesticide called chlorpyriphos, now being banned in many countries. I'm just giving this as an example. Beautiful study where these authors suggest that exposure in real life to this particular pesticide caused risk of Parkinson's in people living in the vicinity of land where this was being used, so this was residential exposure, and they confirmed the toxicity in animal studies where they had rodents inhale that pesticide. That is still not definitive proof that this particular pesticide is toxic. I'm giving it as an example that evolving insights from the real world may give us insights into the risks for the European population that will not be born out of the initial testing performed in the laboratory. So I think it is critical that all pesticides, and for that matter, any other chemicals that we use in Europe should continuously be scrutinized and that unfolding new evidence should be weighed in to reassess possible neurotoxicity. And if certain chemicals prove to be toxic in real life, they should be banned. At the same time, of course, we want to facilitate the admission of green alternatives, biological alternatives. I know that many farmers working with pesticides would love to make a transition to biological agriculture so that they have no concerns around their own safety, the safety of their families, the safety of people living in the vicinity of their farmland. But we don't make life easy on farmers to make that transition. So, yes, I am all for simplifying rules, but I would particularly like to see that being facilitated for green alternatives, the green lane, if you will. And finally, another part of the current omnibus is that certain pesticides that have proven to be toxic to the population's health can currently still be used. This is called the grace period for 18 months. In the current proposal, this will be extended to 36 months. Quite honestly, that is incomprehensible. If something is known to be toxic, it should be banned right away. I understand that a grace period may be needed for farmers or others to seek alternatives, but to double the period to 36 months is to my mind inexplicable if you think of the population health. It is absolutely important that the precautionary principle is more important and that the population's health is more important than any economic risks. And of course, I'm sympathetic to the businesses of farmers and other people working with these chemicals. And my task is not to make life different on them, my task is to make sure that everybody can work safely with chemicals that they can trust, that everybody knows that there is a way to ascertain new insights about evolving insights into toxicity so that eventually we can bring down the risk of neurodegenerative disease in Europe and everybody can eat safely, breathe the air safely, and move forward. So I'm making a call to brave politicians to very critically look at the new omnibus, to think about population health first instead of economic interest. And to those politicians, I would say think of famous predecessors. I'm just mentioning one, Abraham Lincoln introduced the Emancipation Proclamation, which initially was not welcomed in the United States. But eventually people realized this was a bold and daring decision that in the long term paid off. So, yes, voting for the current omnibus is maybe a short-term benefit for you. But please think about the population health, the long-term benefits for the European population. Be a brave politician and vote wisely for the population's health. And I want to kindly thank you for that.

SPEAKER_00 9:29

You've been listening to Parkinson Weekly with Bas Bleam. If you enjoyed today's episode, subscribe now so you never miss the latest in Parkinson's research and share it with friends, colleagues, or anyone who loves a good brain story. Join us next week for another article that may impact the care for people with Parkinson's disease.