A Decision-Support Grid for Evaluating Neonicotinoid Alternatives Based on Environmental and Human Health Impact

Abstract

The European Union’s goal to reduce pesticide risk, exemplified by restrictions on insecticides like neonicotinoids, necessitates a shift from single-substance risk assessment to a holistic evaluation of pest control strategies. To address this, a novel decision-support grid was developed that integrates 13 environmental, biodiversity, and human health risk indicators for multiple active substances across an entire crop season into a single Final Scenario Score (FSS), ranging from 0 to 1 (where 1 is the risk of the reference scenario). This framework was applied to three case studies in Belgium—sugar beet, apple, and pear cultivation—where neonicotinoid-based reference scenarios were compared with chemical and/or organic alternatives under low (best-case) and high (worst-case) pest pressure conditions. The results highlight the complexity of finding viable alternatives, with an FSS below 0.75 as the justification threshold. In sugar beet, only the best-case chemical alternative (FSS = 0.71) met the threshold, while worst-case chemical alternatives failed due to increased risk. For apple and pear, organic alternatives consistently showed low-risk scores (FSS 0.27–0.61) but faced important efficacy gaps against key insect. Chemical alternatives in orchards were justifiable in low-pressure scenarios (FSS 0.64–0.73) but failed under high pest pressure (FSS 0.91–0.93). This novel decision-support grid proves to be a valuable tool for guiding sustainable pest control strategies for regulators and field advisors.

1. Introduction

Effective insect pest control is crucial for ensuring food security, as crop losses due to pests can significantly reduce agricultural production [1,2,3]. Insecticides have long been a cornerstone of pest management. However, increasing environmental [4,5] and human health [6,7] concerns have led to the European Union’s Farm to Fork strategy which aimed for a 50% reduction in pesticide use and risk by 2030 [8]; however, this proposal was withdrawn in 2024 [9]. This ambitious goal initially led to restrictions and bans on many established insecticides, such as the reduction in approved neonicotinoids in the EU from five to a single active substance. This reduction in available insecticides, and with it, the loss of crucial modes of action, inadvertently accelerates the development and spread of insecticide resistance [10,11], further diminishing the ability to effectively control pests [12]. While Integrated Pest Management (IPM) encourages non-chemical strategies, in practice, farmers often rely heavily on chemical pesticides, which can hinder the adoption of alternative pest control methods. When regulatory agencies restrict or ban certain active ingredients, thereby removing a crucial mode of action from the market, farmers may be left with fewer, less effective options. This often necessitates reliance on multiple active ingredients throughout the growing season to achieve adequate pest control. There is a clear need for a decision-support grid to rigorously assess whether an alternative pest control system offers a genuine improvement for environmental and human health compared to the substance it replaces, particularly a candidate for substitution. Without such a tool, regulators and farmers risk replacing one problematic substance with an entire strategy that may pose an equivalent or even greater overall risk.

This increasing complexity demands a new perspective on risk assessment, one that moves beyond evaluating individual substances in isolation. A new approach to this challenge involves two key shifts. The first is a move away from assessing a single substance and toward evaluating a complex of alternative insecticides. The second is using an evaluation approach that incorporates an extensive range of indicators. This new approach embraces a more complete view that integrates multiple risk indicators, ranging from human risk to environmental risk, for a variety of active ingredients across an entire growing season. This proposed novel decision-support grid, which is distinct from earlier single-pesticide and single-compartment risk indicators (e.g., POCER [13]), offers precisely this capability, aiming to demonstrate its effectiveness in guiding sustainable pest control strategies amidst evolving regulatory pressures. Our decision-support grid was applied to three specific Belgian crop case studies: low-stem apple orchards, low-stem pear orchards, and sugar beet fields. These crops were strategically chosen due to their reliance on neonicotinoids and the upcoming ban of these active ingredients.

This study, therefore, proposes and applies a novel decision-support grid for evaluating multi-pesticide strategies. This process is achieved by developing a novel decision-support grid that integrates 13 environmental, biodiversity, and human health risk indicators into a single Final Scenario Score (FSS). The framework will then be applied to Belgian case studies (sugar beet, apple, and pear cultivation) by comparing neonicotinoid-based reference scenarios with chemical and/or organic alternatives. Finally, the framework’s utility is evaluated by assessing the complexity of finding viable alternatives and comparing the FSS of each alternative scenario against the established justification threshold of 0.75.

1.1. Insect Control in Sugar Beet

The Beet Yellows Virus (BYV) complex, encompassing several distinct viruses such as Beet Yellows Virus and Beet Mild Yellowing Virus, poses a significant threat to sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L. subsp. vulgaris var. altissima) production, causing a yield reduction up to 50% [14]. Symptoms include leaves yellowing, chlorotic spotting and leaf thickening, which disrupt photosynthetic processes and phloem transport, ultimately leading to substantial reductions in sucrose yield and root biomass [2,15]. Sugar beets are susceptible to virus infection until they reach the 10–12th leaf stage, after with a trait known as “mature plant resistance” (MPR) is triggered. MPR enables sugar beet plants to secrete a black sticky substance, blocking the stylets of feeding aphids (Myzus persicae (green peach aphid), Macrosiphum euphorbiae (potato aphid) and Myzus ascalonicus (shallot aphid)), which leads to increased aphid mortality [16,17]. Before widespread restrictions on neonicotinoids, seed treatments with compounds like imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, and clothianidin were used to protect sugar beet seedlings from aphid vectors until MPR was established. While some member states continued to permit neonicotinoid seed coatings through emergency authorizations, a 2023 ruling banned the outdoor use of all neonicotinoids except for acetamiprid [18]. Consequently, IPM strategies have become crucial for BYV management. Current IPM practices emphasize regular monitoring of wingless aphid populations, coupled with targeted applications of insecticides (e.g., flonicamid, spirotetramat, sulfoxaflor) when established thresholds are exceeded. For instance, the recommended threshold for an insecticide treatment in the Netherlands and Belgium is two wingless aphids on ten plants, with a maximum of five foliar insecticide applications per season. Due to the impact of climate change, the first flight date of aphids has advanced by more than 30 days. This led to the development of a new comprehensive sugar beet virus yellows model, primarily based on aphid catch data from Broom’s Barn and Kirton 12.2 m suction traps and winter temperatures by Rothamsted Research in the UK [19].

1.2. Insect Control in Apple and Pear Orchards

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in pome fruit relies fundamentally on fostering natural enemy populations to maintain pest control below economic damage thresholds. Key biological control agents are essential: in apple cultivation, the predatory mite Typhlodromus pyri is the cornerstone for managing spider mites and rust mites, while in pear cultivation, the predatory bug Anthocoris nemoralis is the key natural enemy for controlling the pear sucker (Cacopsylla pyri). The success of this system depends on selecting insecticides that spare these beneficial species, a principle often challenged by the need to control difficult, broad-spectrum pests. In pome fruit orchard cultivation, neonicotinoids are used for the control of piercing-sucking insects (Hemiptera such as Aphidoidea, Psyllidae, Heteroptera, Coccoidea, and Pseudococcidae), as well as Curculionidae, Symphyta, and Cecidomyiidae. Despite their relatively broad-spectrum nature, neonicotinoids have historically been integrated into integrated pest management (IPM) in fruit cultivation to combat difficult-to-control and often secondary pests. As alternatives to neonicotinoids, broad-spectrum insecticides like pyrethroids or organophosphates can be used, though their impact on non-target organisms is considerably greater. Most IPM systems, particularly in open environments such as orchards, currently rely on selective agents that spare natural enemies when insecticide control is necessary. While biological agents are usually approved, they often differ from chemical pesticides in terms of efficacy (usually more narrow-spectrum and slower) and residual activity (biological agents break down quickly) [20,21], frequently necessitating multiple applications to achieve comparable control.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Development of Scenarios

To develop realistic pest control scenarios with comparable efficacies for apple, pear, and sugar beet cultivation in the Flemish region of Belgium, a panel of experts from various research institutes [e.g., ILVO, UGent, IRBAB/KBIVB and pcfruit] was consulted. This panel of experts encompassed a comprehensive range of stakeholders, including leading experts from the research institutes within the consortium (UGent, ILVO, PCFruit), representatives from government and regulatory bodies (e.g., FOD VVVL, FAGG), agricultural organizations (e.g., Boerenbond, KBIVB), environmental and nature organizations (e.g., BBL, Velt) and industry and rail management (e.g., Phytofar, Infrabel). This broad composition ensured the scenarios and risk criteria were evaluated based on a complete view of practical feasibility, regulatory constraints and environmental and human health concerns.

This consultation focused on defining scenario parameters, taking into account local pest pressure, current cultivation practices, and regulatory constraints in 2021. Economic factors (cost, adaptability and feasibility) of neonicotinoid alternatives were not taken into account. Different scenarios were developed, fitting where possible within the following three categories:

1. Reference Scenario: A scenario based on the standard practice in Flanders in 2022, typically involving the use of neonicotinoid insecticides (imidacloprid in sugar beet, imidacloprid and thiacloprid in apple orchards and thiacloprid and acetamiprid in pear orchards).

2. Chemical Alternative Scenario: A scenario where neonicotinoids are replaced with one or more alternative chemical insecticides approved for use in Belgium.

3. Organic Alternative Scenario (in apple and pear orchards): A scenario where neonicotinoids and other synthetic insecticides are replaced with naturally derived substances, such as granuloviruses, bacterial insecticides or pheromone-based control. Additionally, for each crop, best- and worst-case scenarios were defined based on expected insect pest pressure. The best-case scenario assumes low pest pressure, allowing for reduced pesticide applications, while the worst-case scenario assumes high pest pressure, necessitating more intensive control measures (increasing frequency and number of substances) in an integrated pest management system.

For each scenario, a detailed pest control strategy was developed (

Table A1. Pest control strategy for the reference scenario in sugar beet.

BBCH	Product	Dose (kg or l Product/ha)	Active Ingredient (a. i.)	Formulation (g a. i./kg or l Product)	Dose (g a. i./ha)	Pest
0	Force 1.5 GR	950	tefluthrin	8.7 × 10−5	11.5	Soil insects
0	Gaucho 70WS	700	imidacloprid	6.8 × 10−4	78.2	Aphids

,

Table A2. Pest control strategy for the best-case (low aphid pressure) chemical alternative scenario in sugar beet.

BBCH	Product	Dose (kg or l Product/ha)	Active Ingredient (a. i.)	Formulation (g a. i./kg or l Product)	Dose (g a. i./ha)	Pest
0	Force 1.5 GR	950	tefluthrin	8.7 × 10−5	11.5	Soil insects
>12	Teppeki	500	flonicamid	0.14	70	Aphids

,

Table A3. Pest control strategy for the worst-case-secondary pest (high aphid pressure, no secondary pest) chemical alternative scenario in sugar beet.

BBCH	Product	Dose (kg or l Product/ha)	Active Ingredient (a. i.)	Formulation (g a. i./kg or l Product)	Dose (g a. i./ha)	Pest
0	Force 1.5 GR	950	tefluthrin	8.7 × 10−5	11.5	Soil insects
>12	Teppeki	500	flonicamid	0.14	70	Aphids
>12	Movento	100	spirotetramat	0.75	75	Aphids
>12	Sequoia	120	sulfoxaflor	0.2	24	Aphids
>12	Movento	100	spirotetramat	0.75	75	Aphids

,

Table A4. Pest control strategy for the worst-case + secondary pest (high aphid pressure, secondary pest) chemical alternative scenario in sugar beet.

BBCH	Product	Dose (kg or l Product/ha)	Active Ingredient (a. i.)	Formulation (g a. i./kg or l Product)	Dose (g a. i./ha)	Pest
0	Force 1.5 GR	950	tefluthrin	8.7 × 10−5	11.5	Soil insects
>12	Teppeki	500	flonicamid	0.14	70	Aphids
>12	Movento	100	spirotetramat	0.75	75	Aphids
>12	Sequoia	120	sulfoxaflor	0.2	24	Aphids
>12	Movento	100	spirotetramat	0.75	75	Aphids
9–19	Karate Zéon	100	lambda-cyhalothrin	0.125	12.5	Pygmy mangle beetle, flea beetle

,

Table A5. Pest control strategy for worst-case (high pest pressure) reference scenario in apple cultivation.

BBCH	Application Date	Product	Dose (kg or l Product/ha Hedge)	Active Ingredient (a. i.)	Formulation (g a. i./kg or l Product)	Dose (g a. i./ha Hedge)	Pest
52	27 February	Promanal high performance	17.5	paraffineolie	830	14,525	red spider mite
54–59	17 March–10 April	Calypso	0.25	thiacloprid	480	120	apple blossom weevil, Heteroptera
56	30 March	Confidor	0.23	imidacloprid	200	46	apple-grass aphid,rosy apple aphid
59, <12 °C, windless	10 April	Pirimor	0.50	pirimicarb	500	250	woolly apple aphid, rosy apple aphid, no effect on citrus mealybug
59, <12 °C, windless	10 April	+Trend	0.33	isodecyl-alcohol ethoxylaat	900	299.7
65	18 April	Nissorun	0.20	hexythiazox	250	50	red spider mite
69	2 April	Steward	0.17	indoxacarb	300	51	caterpillars (Tortricidae, leaf-eating caterpillars, codling moth, summer fruit tortrix)
69–71	2 May	Calypso	0.25	thiacloprid	480	120	Symphyta; codling moth first eggs; Coccoidea; (apple fruit weevil controlled despite no authorization))
>69, before 01/06	2 May–1 June	Insegar	0.40	fenoxycarb	250	100	codling moth
71	<15 May	RAK 3 + 4	500 ampules	(z)-11-tetradeceen-1-yl acetaat codlemone (EE-8,10-dodecadien-1-ol) n-tetradecylacetaat (14ac)			codling moth
72	18 May	Coragen	0.12	chloorantraniliprole	200	24	codling moth; appleseed moth
69–81	1 May–31 May	Movento	1.50	spirotetramat	100	150	woolly apple aphid
>75	1 July–31 August	Masai/Shirudo	0.28	tebufenpyrad	200	56	red spider mite
75–77	1 July–31 July	Affirm	2.00	emamectine benzoaat	9.5	19	codling moth
52	27 February	Promanal high performance	17.5	paraffineolie	830	14,525	red spider mite; Coccoidea
54–59	17 March–10 April	Calypso	0.25	thiacloprid	480	120	apple blossom weevil, Heteroptera

,

Table A6. Pest control strategy for the best-case (low pest pressure) reference scenario in apple cultivation.

BBCH	Application Date	Product	Dose (kg or l Product/ha Hedge)	Active Ingredient (a. i.)	Formulation (g a. i./kg or l Product)	Dose (g a. i./ha Hedge)	Pest
57	3 March	Calypso	0.25	thiacloprid	480	120	rosy apple aphid
65	18 April	Mimic	0.50	tebufenozide	240	120	caterpillars (codling moth, summer fruit tortrix)
65	18 April	Nissorun	0.20	hexythiazox	250	50	red spider mite
>69	2 May–1 June	Insegar	0.40	fenoxycarb	250	100	codling moth
71	<15 May	RAK 3 + 4	500 ampules	(z)-11-tetradeceen-1-yl acetaat 4.1%–codlemone (EE-8,10-dodecadien-1-ol) 3.82%-n-tetradecylacetaat (14ac) 1.9%			codling moth
69–81	1 May–31 May	Movento	1.50	spirotetramat	100	150	woolly apple aphid

,

Table A7. Pest control strategy for worst-case (high pest pressure) chemical alternative scenario in apple cultivation.

BBCH	Application Date	Product	Dose (kg or l Product/ha Hedge)	Active Ingredient (a. i.)	Formulation (g a. i./kg or l Product)	Dose (g a. i./ha Hedge)	Pest
52	27 February	Promanal high performance	17.5	paraffineolie	830	14,525	red spider mite; Coccoidea
54	17 March	Tracer	0.15	spinosad	480	72	apple blossom weevil (54), Heteroptera (<59)
57	3 April	Teppeki	0.08	flonicamid	500	40	apple-grass aphid, rosy apple aphid
59	10 April	Teppeki	0.08	flonicamid	500	40	apple-grass aphid, rosy apple aphid
59, <12 °C, windless	10 April	Pirimor	0.50	pirimicarb	500	250	woolly apple aphid, rosy apple aphid, no effect on citrus mealybug
59, <12 °C, windless	10 April	+Trend	0.33	isodecyl-alcohol ethoxylaat	900	299.7
65	18 April	Nissorun	0.20	hexythiazox	250	50	red spider mite
69	2 May	Steward	0.17	indoxacarb	300	51	caterpillars (Tortricidae, leaf-eating caterpillars, codling moth, summer fruit tortrix)
/	/	No product authorized	/	/	/	/	apple fruit weevil
>69	2 May	Exirel	0.53	cyantraniliprole	100	53	Tortricidae
/	/	No product authorized	/	/	/	/	Symphyta
71	<15 May	RAK 3 + 4	500 ampules	(z)-11-tetradeceen-1-yl acetaat 4.1%-codlemone (EE-8,10-dodecadien-1-ol) 3.82%-n-tetradecylacetaat (14ac) 1.9%			codling moth
72	18 May	Coragen	0.12	chloorantraniliprole	200	24	codling moth; appleseed moth
69–81	1 May–31 May	Movento	1.50	spirotetramat	100	150	woolly apple aphid
>75	1 July–31 August	Masai/Shirudo	0.28	tebufenpyrad	200	56	red spider mite
75–77	1 July–31 July	Affirm	2.00	emamectine benzoate	9.5	19	codling moth

,

Table A8. Pest control strategy for the best-case (low pest pressure) chemical alternative scenario in apple cultivation.

BBCH	Application Date	Product	Dose (kg or l Product/ha Hedge)	Active Ingredient (a. i.)	Formulation (g a. i./kg or l Product)	Dose (g a. i./ha Hedge)	Pest
59	10 April	Teppeki	17.5	paraffin oil	830	14,525	red spider mite; Coccoidea
65	18 April	Nissorun	0.25	thiacloprid	480	120	apple blossom weevil, Heteroptera
65	18 April	Mimic	0.23	imidacloprid	200	46	apple-grass aphid, rosy apple aphid
71	<15 May	RAK 3 + 4	0.50	pirimicarb	500	250	woolly apple aphid, rosy apple aphid, no effect on citrus mealybug
72	18 May	Coragen	0.33	isodecyl-alcohol ethoxylate	900	299.7
69–81	1 May–31 May	Movento	0.20	hexythiazox	250	50	red spider mite

,

Table A9. Pest control strategy for worst-case (high pest pressure) acetamiprid alternative scenario in apple cultivation.

BBCH	Application Date	Product	Dose (kg or l Product/ha Hedge)	Active Ingredient (a. i.)	Formulation (g a. i./kg or l Product)	Dose (g a. i./ha Hedge)	Pest
52	27 February	Promanal high performance	17.5	paraffineolie	830	14,525	red spider mite; Coccoidea
57	3 April	Gazelle	0.15	acetamiprid	200	30	apple-grass aphid,rosy apple aphid
59, <12 °C, windless	10 April	Pirimor	0.5	pirimicarb	500	250	woolly apple aphid, rosy apple aphid, no effect on citrus mealybug
59, <12 °C, windless	10 April	+Trend	0.33	isodecyl-alcohol ethoxylaat	900	299.7
65	18 April	Nissorun	0.2	hexythiazox	250	50	red spider mite
69	2 May	Steward	0.17	indoxacarb	300	51	caterpillars (Tortricidae, leaf-eating caterpillars, codling moth, summer fruit tortrix)
71	2 May	Gazelle	0.15	acetamiprid	200	30	aphids
>69	2 May–1 June	Insegar	0.40	fenoxycarb	250	100	codling moth
71	<15 May	RAK 3 + 4	500 ampules	(z)-11-tetradeceen-1-yl acetaat 4.1%-codlemone (EE-8,10-dodecadien-1-ol) 3.82%-n-tetradecylacetaat (14ac) 1.9%			codling moth
72	18 May	Coragen	0.12	chloorantraniliprole	200	24	codling moth; appleseed moth
69–81	1 May–31 May	Movento	1.50	spirotetramat	100	150	woolly apple aphid
>75	1 July–31 August	Masai/Shirudo	0.28	tebufenpyrad	200	56	red spider mite
75–77	1 July–31 July	Affirm	2.00	emamectine benzoaat	9.5	19	codling moth
57	3 April	Gazelle	17.5	paraffineolie	830	14,525	red spider mite; Coccoidea
59, <12 °C, windless	10 April	Pirimor	2.00	emamectine benzoate	9.5	19	codling moth

,

Table A10. Pest control strategy for the best-case (low pest pressure) acetamiprid alternative scenario in apple cultivation.

BBCH	Application Date	Product	Dose (kg or l Product/ha Hedge)	Active Ingredient (a. i.)	Formulation (g a. i./kg or l Product)	Dose (g a. i./ha Hedge)	Pest
57	3 April	Gazelle	0.15	acetamiprid	200	30	rosy apple aphid, apple-grass aphid
65	18 April	Mimic	0.50	tebufenozide	240		caterpillars (codling moth, summer fruit tortrix)
65	18 April	Nissorun	0.20	hexythiazox	250	50	red spider mite
>69	2 May–1 June	Insegar	0.40	fenoxycarb	250	100	codling moth
71	<15 May	RAK 3 + 4	500 ampules	(z)-11-tetradeceen-1-yl acetaat 4.1%-codlemone (EE-8,10-dodecadien-1-ol) 3.82%-n-tetradecylacetaat (14ac) 1.9%			codling moth
69–81	1 May–31 May	Movento	1.50	spirotetramat	100	150	woolly apple aphid

,

Table A11. Pest control strategy for worst-case (high pest pressure) organic alternative scenario in apple cultivation.

BBCH	Application Date	Product	Dose (kg or l Product/ha Hedge)	Active Ingredient (a. i.)	Formulation (g a. i./kg or l Product)	Dose (g a. i./ha Hedge)	Pest
52	27 February	Promanal high performance	17.5	paraffineolie	830	14,525	red spider mite; Coccoidea
53–54	17 March	Tracer	0.15	spinosad	480	72	apple blossom weevil (54), Heteroptera (<59)
59	3 April	Teppeki	0.08	flonicamid	500	40	apple-grass aphid, rosy apple aphid
57	10 April	Teppeki	0.08	flonicamid	500	40	apple-grass aphid, rosy apple aphid
59, <12 °C, windless	10 April	Pirimor	0.50	pirimicarb	500	250	woolly apple aphid, rosy apple aphid, no effect on citrus mealybug
59, <12 °C, windless	10 April	+Trend	0.33	isodecyl-alcohol ethoxylaat	900	299.7
65	18 April	Nissorun	0.20	hexythiazox	250	50	red spider mite
69	2 May	Steward	0.17	indoxacarb	300	51	rupsen (Tortricidae, leaf-eating caterpillars, codling moth, summer fruit tortrix)
/	/	No product authorized	/	/	/	/	apple fruit weevil
>69	2 May	Exirel	0.53	cyantraniliprole	100	53	Tortricidae
/	/	No product authorized	/	/	/	/	Symphyta
71	<15 May	RAK 3 + 4	500 ampules	(z)-11-tetradeceen-1-yl acetaat 4.1%-codlemone (EE-8,10-dodecadien-1-ol) 3.82%-n-tetradecylacetaat (14ac) 1.9%			codling moth

,

Table A12. Pest control strategy for the best-case (low pest pressure) organic alternative scenario in apple cultivation.

BBCH	Application Date	Product	Dose (kg or l Product/ha Hedge)	Active Ingredient (a. i.)	Formulation (g a. i./kg or l Product)	Dose (g a. i./ha Hedge)	Pest
59	10 April	Teppeki	17.5	paraffin oil	830	14,525	red spider mite; Coccoidea
65	18 April	Nissorun	0.25	thiacloprid	480	120	apple blossom weevil, Heteroptera
65	18 April	Mimic	0.23	imidacloprid	200	46	apple-grass aphid, rosy apple aphid
71	<15 May	RAK 3 + 4	0.50	pirimicarb	500	250	woolly apple aphid, rosy apple aphid, no effect on citrus mealybug
72	18 May	Coragen	0.33	isodecyl-alcohol ethoxylate	900	299.7
69–81	1 May–31 May	Movento	0.20	hexythiazox	250	50	red spider mite

,

Table A13. Pest control strategy for worst-case (high pest pressure) reference scenario in pear cultivation.

BBCH	Application Date	Product	Dose (kg or l Product/ha Hedge)	Active Ingredient (a. i.)	Formulation (g a. i./kg or l Product)	Dose (g a. i./ha Hedge)	Pest
<52	<14 February	Surround WP	20	aluminiumsilicaat	950	19,000	pear psyllid
<52	<14 February	Surround WP	13.3	aluminiumsilicaat	950	12,635	pear psyllid
54–57	12 March–26 March	Vernotex	6.20	paraffineolie	850	5270	pear psyllid, pear oyster scale, apple-grass aphid, aphids, red spider mite, Heteroptera
54–57	12 March–26 March	Calypso	0.25	thiacloprid	480	120	aphids, Heteroptera, pear psyllid
60–67	2 April–16 April	Mimic	0.50	tebufenozide	240	120	summer fruit tortrix, Ortosia spp.
>69	>21 April	Movento	1.50	spirotetramat	100	150	pear psyllid, pear oyster scale, pear-bedstraw aphid, aphids, Dasineura
>69	+21 d	Movento	1.50	spirotetramat	100	150	pear psyllid, pear oyster scale, pear-bedstraw aphid, aphids, Dasineura
>69	>21 April	Tracer	0.30	spinosad	480	720	groene appelwants, Symphyta, shield bugs, Heteroptera, pbv, summer fruit tortrix
<73	<15 May	RAK 3 + 4	500 ampules/ha	(z)-11-tetradeceen-1-yl acetaat 4.1%-codlemone (EE-8,10-dodecadien-1-ol) 3.82%-n-tetradecylacetaat (14ac) 1.9%			codling moth, Tortricidae
74–78	15 June–July	Delegate	0.20	spinetoram	250	50	pear psyllid, codling moth, summer fruit tortrix
74–78	15 June–July	Coragen	0.12	chloorantraniliprole	200	24	codling moth
76–89	1 July–31 August	Atilla	2.67	kaliumwaterstofcarbonaat	850	2269.5	pear psyllid
76–89	1 July–31 August	Affirm	2.00	emamectine benzoaat	9.5	19	codling moth
76–89	1 July–31 August	Xentari	1.00	B. thuringiensis ssp. aizawai stam ABTS-1857	15000 IU/mg		leaf-eating caterpillars, codling moth, satin moth, ermine moth, winter moth
>89	>30 August	Siltac	0.75	polyakyleneoxide modified heptamethyltrisiloxane	<75%		pear psyllid, Pear phylloxera, Calepitrimerus vitis, red spider mite
>89	>30 August	Calypso	0.25	thiacloprid	480	120	aphids, Heteroptera

,

Table A14. Pest control strategy for the best-case (low pest pressure) reference scenario in pear cultivation.

BBCH	Application Date	Product	Dose (kg or l Product/ha Hedge)	Active Ingredient (a. i.)	Formulation (g a. i./kg or l Product)	Dose (g a. i./ha Hedge)	Pest
<52	<14 February	Surround WP	20.0	aluminiumsilicaat	950	19,000	pear psyllid
<52	<14 February	Surround WP	13.3	aluminiumsilicaat	950	12,635	pear psyllid
54–57	12 March–26 March	Vernotex	6.20	paraffineolie	850	5270	pear psyllid, pear oyster scale, apple-grass aphid, aphids, red spider mite, Heteroptera
54–57	12 March–26 March	Calypso	0.25	thiacloprid	480	120	aphids, Heteroptera, pear psyllid
60–67	2 April–16 April	Mimic	0.50	tebufenozide	240	120	summer fruit tortrix, Ortosia spp.
>69	>21 April	Movento	1.50	spirotetramat	100	150	pear psyllid, pear oyster scale, pear-bedstraw aphid, aphids, Dasineura
<73	<15 May	RAK 3 + 4	500 ampules	(z)-11-tetradeceen-1-yl acetaat 4.1%-codlemone (EE-8,10-dodecadien-1-ol) 3.82%-n-tetradecylacetaat (14ac) 1.9%			codling moth, Tortricidae
74–78	15 June–July	Coragen	0.12	chloorantraniliprole	200	24	codling moth
74–78	15 June–July	Atilla	2.67	kaliumwaterstofcarbonaat	850	2269.5	pear psyllid
76–89	1 July–31 August	Siltac	0.625	polyakyleneoxide modified heptamethyltrisiloxane	<75%		pear psyllid, Pear phylloxera, Calepitrimerus vitis, red spider mite

,

Table A15. Pest control strategy for worst-case (high pest pressure) chemical alternative scenario in pear cultivation. Currently pear midge has no sufficient authorized pest control product in this scenario.

BBCH	Application Date	Product	Dose (kg or l Product/ha Hedge)	Active Ingredient (a. i.)	Formulation (g a. i./kg or l Product)	Dose (g a. i./ha Hedge)	Pest
<52	<14 February	Surround WP	20.0	aluminiumsilicaat	950	19,000	pear psyllid
<52	<14 February	Surround WP	13.3	aluminiumsilicaat	950	12,635	pear psyllid
54–57	12 March–26 March	Vernotex	6.20	paraffineolie	850	5270	pear psyllid, pear oyster scale, apple-grass aphid, aphids, red spider mite, Heteroptera
54–57	12 March–26 March	Sivanto Prime	0.35	flupyradifuron	200	70	apple-grass aphid, aphids
60–67	2 April–16 April	Mimic	0.50	tebufenozide	240	120	summer fruit tortrix, Ortosia spp.
>69	>21 April	Movento	1.50	spirotetramat	100	150	pear psyllid, pear oyster scale, pear-bedstraw aphid, aphids, Dasineura
>69	+21 d	Movento	1.50	spirotetramat	100	150	pear psyllid, pear oyster scale, pear-bedstraw aphid, aphids, Dasineura
>71	>30 April	Tracer	0.30	spinosad	480	720	groene appelwants, Symphyta, shield bugs, Heteroptera, pbv, summer fruit tortrix
<73	<15 May	RAK 3 + 4	500 ampules	(z)-11-tetradeceen-1-yl acetaat 4.1%-codlemone (EE-8,10-dodecadien-1-ol) 3.82%-n-tetradecylacetaat (14ac) 1.9%			codling moth, Tortricidae
74–78	15 June–July	Delegate	0.20	spinetoram	250	50	pear psyllid, codling moth, summer fruit tortrix
74–78	15 June–July	Coragen	0.12	chloorantraniliprole	200	24	codling moth
76–89	1 July–31 August	Atilla	2.67	kaliumwaterstofcarbonaat	850	2269.5	pear psyllid
76–89	1 July–31 August	Affirm	2.00	emamectine benzoaat	9.5	19	codling moth
76–89	1 July–31 August	Xentari	1.00	Bacillus thuringiensis ssp. aizawai stam ABTS-1857	15000 IU/mg		leaf-eating caterpillars, codling moth, satin moth, ermine moth, winter moth
>89	>30 August	Siltac	0.75	polyakyleneoxide modified heptamethyltrisiloxane	<75%		pear psyllid, Pear phylloxera, Calepitrimerus vitis, red spider mite
>89	>30 August	Raptol	10.0	koolzaadolie	825.3	8253	Anthonomus spilotus (apple blossom weevil)
>89	>30 August			pyrethrinen	4.59	45.9

,

Table A16. Pest control strategy for the best-case (low pest pressure) chemical alternative scenario in pear cultivation.

BBCH	Application Date	Product	Dose (kg or l Product/ha Hedge)	Active Ingredient (a. i.)	Formulation (g a. i./kg or l Product)	Dose (g a. i./ha Hedge)	Pest
<52	<14 February	Surround WP	20	aluminiumsilicaat	950	19,000	pear psyllid
<52	<14 February	Surround WP	13.3	aluminiumsilicaat	950	12,635	pear psyllid
54–57	12–26 March	Vernotex	6.2	paraffineolie	850	5270	pear psyllid, pear oyster scale, apple-grass aphid, aphids, red spider mite, Heteroptera
54–57	12–26 March	Teppeki	0.08	flonicamid	500	40	apple-grass aphid, aphids
60–67	2–16 April	Mimic	0.5	tebufenozide	240	120	summer fruit tortrix, Ortosia spp.
>69	>21 April	Movento	1.5	spirotetramat	100	150	pear psyllid, pear oyster scale, pear-bedstraw aphid, aphids, Dasineura
<73	<15 May	RAK 3 + 4	500 ampullen/ha	(z)-11-tetradeceen-1-yl acetaat 4.1%-codlemone (EE-8,10-dodecadien-1-ol) 3.82%-n-tetradecylacetaat (14ac) 1.9%			codling moth, Tortricidae
74–78	15 June–July	Coragen	0.12	chloorantraniliprole	200	24	codling moth
74–78	15 June–July	Atilla	2.67	kaliumwaterstofcarbonaat	850	2269.5	pear psyllid
76–89	1 July–31 August	Siltac	0.625	polyakyleneoxide modified heptamethyltrisiloxane	<75%		pear psyllid, Pear phylloxera, Calepitrimerus vitis, red spider mite
<52	<14 February	Surround WP	20	aluminiumsilicaat	950	19,000	pear psyllid

,

Table A17. Pest control strategy for worst-case (high pest pressure) acetamiprid alternative scenario in pear cultivation.

BBCH	Application Date	Product	Dose (kg or l Product/ha Hedge)	Active Ingredient (a. i.)	Formulation (g a. i./kg or l Product)	Dose (g a. i./ha Hedge)	Pest
<52	<14 February	Surround WP	20.0	aluminiumsilicaat	950	19,000	pear psyllid
<52	<14 February	Surround WP	13.3	aluminiumsilicaat	950	12,635	pear psyllid
54–57	12 March–26 March	Vernotex	6.20	paraffineolie	850	5270	pear psyllid, pear oyster scale, apple-grass aphid, aphids, red spider mite, Heteroptera
54–57	12 March–26 March	Gazelle	0.15	acetamiprid	200	30	apple-grass aphid, aphids
60–67	2 April–16 April	Mimic	0.50	tebufenozide	240	120	summer fruit tortrix, Ortosia
>69	>21 April	Movento	1.50	spirotetramat	100	150	pear psyllid, pear oyster scale, pear-bedstraw aphid, aphids, Dasineura
>69	+21 d	Movento	1.50	spirotetramat	100	150	pear psyllid, pear oyster scale, pear-bedstraw aphid, aphids, Dasineura
>71	>30 April	Tracer	0.30	spinosad	480	720	groene appelwants, Symphyta, shield bugs, Heteroptera, pbv, summer fruit tortrix
<73	<15 May	RAK 3 + 4	500 ampules	(z)-11-tetradeceen-1-yl acetaat 4.1%-codlemone (EE-8,10-dodecadien-1-ol) 3.82%-n-tetradecylacetaat (14ac) 1.9%			codling moth, Tortricidae
74–78	15 June–July	Delegate	0.20	spinetoram	250	50	pear psyllid, codling moth, summer fruit tortrix
74–78	15 June–July	Coragen	0.12	chloorantraniliprole	200	24	codling moth
76–89	1 July–31 August	Atilla	2.67	kaliumwaterstofcarbonaat	850	2269.5	pear psyllid
76–89	1 July–31 August	Affirm	2.00	emamectine benzoaat	9.5	19	codling moth
76–89	1 July–31 August	Xentari	1.00	Bacillus thuringiensis ssp. aizawai stam ABTS-1857	15000 IU/mg		leaf-eating caterpillars, codling moth, satin moth, ermine moth, winter moth
>89	>30 August	Siltac	0.75	polyakyleneoxide modified heptamethyltrisiloxane	<75%		pear psyllid, Pear phylloxera, Calepitrimerus vitis, red spider mite
>89	>30 August	Gazelle	0.15	acetamiprid	200	30	aphids (Heteroptera, Anthonomus spilotus)

,

Table A18. Pest control strategy for the best-case (low pest pressure) acetamiprid alternative scenario in pear cultivation.

BBCH	Application Date	Product	Dose (kg or l Product/ha Hedge)	Active Ingredient (a. i.)	Formulation (g a. i./kg or l Product)	Dose (g a. i./ha Hedge)	Pest
<52	<14 February	Surround WP	20.0	aluminiumsilicaat	950	19,000	pear psyllid
<52	<14 February	Surround WP	13.3	aluminiumsilicaat	950	12,635	pear psyllid
54–57	12 March–26 March	Vernotex	6.20	paraffineolie	850	5270	pear psyllid, pear oyster scale, apple-grass aphid, aphids, red spider mite, Heteroptera
54–57	12 March–26 March	Gazelle	0.15	acetamiprid	200	30	apple-grass aphid, aphids
60–67	2 April–16 April	Mimic	0.50	tebufenozide	240	120	summer fruit tortrix, Ortosia
>69	>21 April	Movento	1.50	spirotetramat	100	150	pear psyllid, pear oyster scale, pear-bedstraw aphid, aphids, Dasineura
<73	<15 May	RAK 3 + 4	500 ampules	(z)-11-tetradeceen-1-yl acetaat 4.1%-codlemone (EE-8,10-dodecadien-1-ol) 3.82%-n-tetradecylacetaat (14ac) 1.9%			codling moth, Tortricidae
74–78	15 June–July	Coragen	0.12	chloorantraniliprole	200	24	codling moth
74–78	15 June–July	Atilla	2.67	kaliumwaterstofcarbonaat	850	2269.5	pear psyllid
76–89	1 July–31 August	Siltac	0.625	polyakyleneoxide modified heptamethyltrisiloxane	<75%		pear psyllid, Pear phylloxera, Calepitrimerus vitis, red spider mite

,

Table A19. Pest control strategy for worst-case (high pest pressure) organic alternative scenario in pear cultivation. Currently no sufficient authorized plant protection methods available for pear midge, Symphyta and Coccoidea after bloom period.

BBCH	Application Date	Product	Dose (kg or l Product/ha Hedge)	Active Ingredient (a. i.)	Formulation (g a. i./kg or l Product)	Dose (g a. i./ha Hedge)	Pest
<52	<14 February	Surround WP	20.0	aluminiumsilicaat	950	19,000	pear psyllid
<52	<14 February	Surround WP	13.3	aluminiumsilicaat	950	12,635	pear psyllid
54–57	12 March–26 March	Vernotex	6.20	paraffineolie	850	5270	pear psyllid, pear oyster scale, apple-grass aphid, aphids, red spider mite, Heteroptera
<59	30 March	Tracer	0.15	spinosad	480	72	groene appelwants, Symphyta, (schild)Heteroptera, summer fruit tortrix, winter moth
65	7 April	2 × Xentari	1.00	Bacillus thuringiensis ssp. aizawai stam ABTS-1857	15,000 IU/mg		rupsen, Tortricidae, winter moth
58–69	1 March–31 March	Symphyta traps					perenSymphyta
>71	>30 April	Tracer	0.15	spinosad	480	72	pear psyllid, shield bugs, summer fruit tortrix, Heteroptera, Symphyta
<73	<15 May	RAK 3 + 4	500 ampules	(z)-11-tetradeceen-1-yl acetaat 4.1%-codlemone (EE-8,10-dodecadien-1-ol) 3.82%-n-tetradecylacetaat (14ac) 1.9%			codling moth, Tortricidae
72	<15 May	isomate CLS plus	750 ampules	(z)-8-tetradeceen-1-ol 2.23%; 1-dodecanol 4.08%; (z)-11-tetradeceen-1-yl acetaat 20.08%; (z)-8-tetradeceen-1-ylacetaat 21.8%; (z)-9-tetradeceen-1-ylacetaat 3.9%; codlemone (EE-8,10-acetaat 3.9%; codlemone (EE-8,10-dodecadien-1-ol) 25.23%; tetradecaan-1-ol 0.91%			codling moth, summer fruit tortrix
<76	1 May–31 July	Atilla	2.67	kaliumwaterstofcarbonaat	850	2269.5	pear psyllid
76–89	1 July–31 August	Atilla	0.625		<75%		pear psyllid, Pear phylloxera, Calepitrimerus vitis, red spider mite
	1 June–31 August	3 × Madex Max	0.075	Cydia pomonella granulozevirus isolat	3 × 10−13		codling moth
76–89	1 July–31 August	Xentari	1.00	Bacillus thuringiensis ssp. aizawai stam ABTS-1857	15,000 IU/mg		leaf-eating caterpillars, codling moth, satin moth, ermine moth, winter moth
>89	>30 August	Atilla	2.67	kaliumwaterstofcarbonaat	850	2269.5	pear psyllid
>89	>30 August	Raptol	10.0	koolzaadolie	825.3	8253	Anthonomus spilotus (apple blossom weevil)
	>30 August		10.0	pyrethrinen	4.59	45.9

and

Table A20. Pest control strategy for the best-case (low pest pressure) organic alternative scenario in pear cultivation.

BBCH	Application Date	Product	Dose (kg or l Product/ha Hedge)	Active Ingredient (a. i.)	Formulation (g a. i./kg or l Product)	Dose (g a. i./ha Hedge)	Pest
<52	<14 February	Surround WP	20	aluminiumsilicaat	950	19,000	pear psyllid
<52	<14 February	Surround WP	13.3	aluminiumsilicaat	950	12,635	pear psyllid
54–57	12 March–26 March	Vernotex	6.2	paraffineolie	850	5270	pear psyllid, (pear oyster scale, apple-grass aphid, aphids, red spider mite, Heteroptera)
65	7 April	1 × Xentari	1	Bacillus thuringiensis ssp. aizawai stam ABTS-1857	15,000 IU/mg		rupsen, Tortricidae, winter moth
<73	<15 May	RAK 3 + 4	500 ampules/ha	(z)-11-tetradeceen-1-yl acetaat 4.1%-codlemone (EE-8,10-dodecadien-1-ol) 3.82%-n-tetradecylacetaat (14ac) 1.9%			codling moth, Tortricidae
<76	1 May–31 July	Atilla	2.67	kaliumwaterstofcarbonaat	850	2269.5	pear psyllid
76–89	1 July–31 August	Atilla	0.625	polyakyleneoxide modified heptamethyltrisiloxane	<75%		pear psyllid, (Pear phylloxera, Calepitrimerus vitis, red spider mite)
	1 June–31 August	2 × Madex Max	0.075	Cydia pomonella granulozevirus isolat	3 × 10−13		codling moth

), outlining the timing, application dose and frequency of pesticide applications. The selection of active ingredients was based on current practices and regulatory status in Belgium, prioritizing their efficacy against target insect pests. Application dose was taken as the maximum allowed dose. The scenarios were chosen to have the most equivalent performance possible (with comparable yield and quality), without taking into consideration the economic aspects during the selection process.

2.2. Human Risk

Human health risks for the operator, worker, bystander and resident were calculated using calculations based on the OPEX calculator. This calculator has been developed based on previous EFSA studies [22,23]. Precautionary statements of plant protection products were used to establish the use of personal protective equipment. Dermal absorption, Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI), Acceptable Operator Exposure Level (AOEL), Acute Acceptable Operator Exposure Level (AAOEL), Vapour pressure, Molecular Weight (AAOEL) and DT_50,foliar are taken from the Pesticides Properties Database (PPDB) [24]. Area Treated Per Day was based on POCER-2 [13] or on the expert’s advice if better estimates were available. Consumer health risk was based on the risk indicator (RI) RI_consumers of POCER-2 [13]. Maximum residue levels (MRL) are taken from the EU Pesticides Database [25,26].

2.3. Biodiversity Risk

Different biodiversity risk indicators were implemented in the model. Pesticide risk for aquatic organisms, birds and earthworms was taken from POCER-2 [13]. A risk indicator for bees adapted from Adriaanse et al. (2023) [22,27] was calculated as the sum of hazard quotients from different exposure routes. The water exposure route was constructed from the average hazard quotient of guttation, surface and puddle water. For honeybees (Apis mellifera), bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) and solitary bees (Osmia sp.), hazard quotients were calculated for both contact and oral exposure. However, when toxicity data for bumblebees and solitary bees were unavailable, updated toxicity extrapolation factors (Tef) from Adriaanse et al. (2023) [27] were used to estimate toxicity based on honeybee data. A total hazard quotient for bees was calculated by taking the average of the three bee groups.

To improve the assessment of risks to beneficial arthropods, the POCER RI_{beneficial arthropods} [28] was replaced with the EVA-indicator [29]. This new indicator offers a more robust assessment by considering several factors. The assessment considers the timing of effects, both immediate and those delayed by two weeks post-application. The crop context is also taken into account, which includes the specific crop and the beneficial organisms relevant to it and their importance. Additionally, application factors are evaluated. These include the time of application and the life stage of the beneficial organisms. Finally, the assessment considers product interactions, such as side effects and the impacts of tank mixes. The EVA-indicator prioritizes field data over lab data for a more realistic risk assessment. However, it cannot currently assess the impact of seed coatings, a key application method in the sugar beet reference scenario. For these specific cases, a risk score of 0, derived from the original POCER indicator, was assigned for beneficial insects to serve as a baseline [28].

2.4. Environmental Risk

Environmental risks for soil persistence and groundwater were taken from POCER-1 [28]. Predicted environmental concentrations in surface water and puddle water were derived from POCER-2 [13] to serve as input for bee risk assessments [27,30]. Life cycle assessments (LCA) were conducted to estimate the global warming potential (GWP) in kg CO2 of each pest management scenario. Using the open-source OpenLCA 1.11 software and the publicly available Agribalyse database [31], GWP was modelled for all insect control related agricultural activities, including product application (spraying for orchards, conventional spraying for field crops), transport of pesticides to the field, and seeding (sowing/planting of crops). Specific parameters within the Agribalyse database were selected to represent these activities for the pear, apple, and sugar beet case studies, promoting transparency and reproducibility in the analysis.

Thirteen risk indicators were used to evaluate the environmental, biodiversity and human health impacts of each pest management scenario; they were thus grouped into three categories:

• Environmental Risk Indicators: Soil Persistence, Ground Water, and Global Warming Potential (GWP).
• Biodiversity Risk Indicators: Aquatic Organisms, Birds, Earthworms, Bees and Beneficial Arthropods (EVA).
• Human Health Risk Indicators: Operators, Worker, Resident, Bystander, and Consumer.

To compare scenarios, we calculated a final score (Equation (1)) for each by

• Summing indicator scores: Individual indicator scores are summed across all pesticide applications within a scenario.
• Normalizing to the reference: Scenario scores are expressed relative to the reference scenario to highlight changes.
• Focusing on substantial changes: Only improvements greater than 5% are considered.
• Weighting: GWP is weighted at 10%, the 12 remaining indicators are weighted equally (1/12) for the remaining 90%. This was justified by the expert panel as the GWP has an impact on other indicators.

This approach allowed us to identify scenarios that offered relevant improvements in environmental and human health profiles compared to the reference.

$$\mathrm{F}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{S}=0.1\ast \min \left(1,{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{R}{\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{G}\mathrm{W}{\mathrm{P}}_{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{o}}}}{\mathrm{R}{{\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{G}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{P}}}_{\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{f}}}}\right)+0.9\ast \sum _{i=1}^{\mathrm{n}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\ast \min \left(1,{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{R}{\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{i}}}{\mathrm{R}{\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{f}}}}\right)$$

(1)

where

• FSS = Final Scenario Score;
• RI = Risk Indicator;
• n = number of indicators excluding $\mathrm{R}{\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{G}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{P}}$;
• $\min \left(1,{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{R}{\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{i}}}{\mathrm{R}{\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{f}}}}\right)$ = the Capped Relative Risk score.

Based on expert judgment, a final scenario score (FSS) of less than 0.75 was established as the threshold to identify more environmentally and human health benign alternative strategies for that specific crop application. The 0.75 threshold was chosen because it represents a 25% improvement across all risk indicators, while still allowing for some indicators to have a less-than-ideal score as long as the overall performance is good. The min function in the formula ensures that any single indicator’s score does not pull the total score beyond a certain point, effectively capping its contribution to the final score at a maximum of 1, which represents 100% of the reference value. This approach focuses on the overall performance rather than penalizing a scenario for poor performance on a single indicator. This approach also benefits decision makers with more background information by providing them with a set of 13 risk indicators.

3. Results

3.1. Insect Control in Sugar Beet

The detailed scores for the individual risk indicators across all scenarios are presented in

Table 1. Total and individual risk indicator scores for active ingredients of different scenarios for insect control in sugar beet. EVA = risk indicator of beneficial arthropods [29].

Scenario	Active Ingredient	Operator	Worker	Resident	Bystander	Consumer	Soil Persistence	Ground Water	Aquatic Organisms	EVA	Bees	Earth Worms	Birds
Reference	ALL	0.00	0.00	1.40 × 102	0.00	9.54 × 10−7	1.00	8.95 × 10−3	1.0002	0.00	7.85 × 102	1.50 × 10−4	7.70 × 10−5
	imidacloprid	0.00	0.00	1.32 × 102	0.00	9.83 × 10−9	1.00	8.95 × 10−3	2.34 × 10−4	0.00	7.85 × 102	5.85 × 10−4	7.57 × 10−5
	tefluthrin	0.00	0.00	7.78	0.00	9.44 × 10−7	6.64 × 10−4	1.46 × 10−7	1.00	0.00	1.77	9.20 × 10−4	1.29 × 10−6
Chemical	ALL	6.98 × 10−2	1.00	3.17 × 103	2.88	1.02 × 10−6	7.81 × 10−4	2.48 × 10−5	1.00	0.18	7.48	9.26 x10−4	3.38 × 10−5
Alternative	tefluthrin	0.00	0.00	7.78	0.00	9.44 × 10−7	6.64 × 10−4	1.46 × 10−7	1.00	0.00	1.77	9.20 × 10−4	1.29 × 10−6
Best Case	flonicamid	6.98 × 10−2	1.00	3.16 × 103	2.88	7.08 × 10−8	1.17 × 10−4	2.47 × 10−5	1.20 × 10−3	0.18	7.46	5.60 × 10−6	3.26 × 10−5
Chemical	ALL	7.78 × 10−2	3.50	4.59 × 103	3.34	1.17 × 10−6	1.10 × 10−3	2.51 × 10−5	1.08	0.80	7.39 × 102	7.96 × 10−3	2.07 × 10−4
Alternative	tefluthrin	0.00	0.00	7.78	0.00	9.44 × 10−7	6.64 × 10−4	1.46 × 10−7	1.00	0.00	1.77	9.20 × 10−4	1.29 × 10−6
Worst Case	flonicamid	6.98 × 10−2	1.00	3.16 × 103	2.88	7.08 × 10−8	1.17 × 10−4	2.47 × 10−5	1.20 × 10−3	1.84 × 10−1	2.09	5.60 × 10−6	3.26 × 10−5
	spirotetramat	3.50 × 10−3	1.00	6.65 × 102	2.16 × 10−1	7.08 × 10−8	1.01 × 10−4	1.46 × 10−7	4.16 × 10−2	1.58 × 10−1	2.74	6.00 × 10−6	3.49 × 10−5
	sulfoxaflor	9.58 × 10−2	0.50	9.53 × 10	3.08 × 10−2	1.48 × 10−8	1.12 × 10−4	2.80 × 10−8	3.95 × 10−4	3.02 × 10−1	7.30 × 102	7.02 × 10−3	1.03 × 10−4
	spirotetramat	3.50 × 10−3	1.00	6.65 × 102	2.16 × 10−2	7.08 × 10−8	1.01 × 10−4	1.46 × 10−7	4.16 × 10−2	1.58 × 10−1	2.74	6.00 × 10−6	3.49 × 10−5
Chemical	ALL	1.08	3.50	9.55 × 103	12.973	1.41 × 10−6	7.75 × 10−1	2.53 × 10−5	2.08	1.674	1.04 × 103	7.96 × 10−3	2.10 × 10−4
Alternative	tefluthrin	0.00	0.00	7.78	0.00	9.44 × 10−7	6.64 × 10−4	1.46 × 10−7	1.00	0.00	1.77	9.20 × 10−4	1.29 × 10−6
Worst Case	flonicamid	6.98 × 10−2	1.00	3.16 × 103	2.88	7.08 × 10−8	1.17 × 10−4	2.47 × 10−5	1.20 × 10−3	1.84 × 10−1	2.09	5.60 × 10−6	3.26 × 10−5
+ Secondary	spirotetramat	3.5 × 10−3	1.00	6.65 × 102	2.16 × 10−1	7.08 × 10−8	1.01 × 10−4	1.46 × 10−7	4.16 × 10−2	1.58 × 10−1	2.74	6.00 × 10−6	3.49 × 10−5
Pest	sulfoxaflor	9.58 × 10−2	0.50	9.53 × 10	3.08 × 10−2	1.48 × 10−8	1.12 × 10−4	2.80 × 10−8	3.95 × 10−4	3.02 × 10−1	7.30 × 102	7.02 × 10−3	1.03 × 10−4

. The results (see Equation (1)) are visually presented using radar charts (Figure 1) that display the Capped Relative Risk Scores (see Equation (1)) for each scenario. In these figures, the outer edge of the graph (the mark) represents the risk of the reference scenario (FSS = 1.00) for that specific indicator. The area of the filled polygon within the chart represents the overall relative risk. Consequently, scenarios with a smaller area indicate a greater reduction in risk compared to the neonicotinoid-based reference scenario. These Capped Relative Risk scores are also summarized in

Table 2. Overview of biodiversity, environmental and human risk indicator scores of alternative scenarios of insect control in sugar beet compared to the reference scenario with imidacloprid ($\mathrm{m}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}(1,{\displaystyle \frac{R{I}_i}{R{I}_{ref}}})$).

Scenario	Operator	Worker	Resident	Bystander	Consumer	GWP	Soil Persistence	Ground Water	Aquatic Organisms	EVA	Bees	Earth Worms	Birds
Best Case	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.00	0.00	1.00	1.00	0.01	0.62	0.44
Worst Case	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.00	0.00	1.00	1.00	0.94	1.00	1.00
Worst Case + Secondary Pest	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.77	0.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00

.

The Final Scenario Scores (FSS) for alternative insect control in sugar beet, calculated according to Equation (1), are

• Best-case scenario: 0.71;
• Worst-case scenario: 0.85;
• Worst-case scenario + secondary pest: 0.91.

The implementation of IPM strategies resulted in Final Scenario Scores (FSS) ranging from 0.71 in the best-case scenario to 0.91 in the most challenging worst-case scenario. According to the established methodology, an FSS below 0.75 is required to justify replacing the neonicotinoid-based reference scenario. Consequently, only the best-case scenario, which assumes a single insecticide application, meets this criterion. The reference scenario, utilizing a neonicotinoid seed coating, provides season-long protection and demonstrates lower human risk scores due to the targeted application method versus foliar sprays (Table 1). The reference scenario, utilizing a neonicotinoid seed coating, provides season-long protection and demonstrates lower human risk scores due to the targeted application method versus foliar sprays (Table 1). However, across all alternative scenarios, the Human Health risk indicators (Operator, Worker, Resident, Bystander, Consumer) show little to no improvement, often remaining near the 1.00 reference level.

3.2. Insect Control in Apple Orchards

The Final Scenario Scores (FSS) for insect control in apple cultivation are presented in

Table 3. Final Scenario scores according to Equation (1) for alternative scenarios for insect control in apple cultivation.

Scenario	Pest Pressure	Final Score
Chemical alternative	High Pressure (Worst case)	0.91
Acetamiprid substitution	High Pressure (Worst case)	0.83
Organic alternative	High Pressure (Worst case)	0.61
Chemical alternative	Low Pressure (Best case)	0.64
Acetamiprid substitution	Low Pressure (Best case)	0.81
Organic alternative	Low Pressure (Best case)	0.44

. Under best-case (low pest pressure) conditions, the organic alternative achieved the lowest FSS of 0.44, indicating a substantial reduction in risk compared to the chemical alternative (0.64), the acetamiprid substitution (0.81) and the reference scenario (1.00). In the worst-case scenario (high pest pressure), the organic alternative (FSS = 0.61) still substantially outperformed both the chemical alternative (0.91) and the acetamiprid substitution (0.83). The individual risk indicator scores that contribute to these final scores are detailed in Appendix A (Table A1, Table A2, Table A3, Table A4, Table A5, Table A6, Table A7 and Table A8). The Capped Relative Risk Scores (Equation (1)) are summarized in

Table 4. Overview of biodiversity, environmental and human risk indicator scores of alternative scenarios of insect control in apple orchards compared to the reference scenario with thiacloprid ($\mathrm{m}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}(1,{\displaystyle \frac{R{I}_i}{R{I}_{ref}}})$).

Scenario		Operator	Worker	Resident	Bystander	Consumer	GWP	Soil Persistence	Ground Water	Aquatic Organisms	EVA	Bees	Earth Worms	Birds
Chemical alternative	Worst Case	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.67	0.61	0.86	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.60
Acetamiprid	Worst Case	1.00	1.00	0.36	0.86	0.90	0.92	0.67	0.60	0.87	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.59
Organic Alternative	Worst Case	1.00	0.36	0.14	1.00	0.21	1.00	0.00	0.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.02
Chemical Alternative	Best Case	0.27	0.20	0.79	1.00	0.08	1.00	0.00	1.00	0.34	0.64	0.09	0.01	0.06
Acetamiprid	Best Case	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.66	0.88	0.83	1.00	1.00	0.86	0.94	0.33	1.00	0.05
Organic Alternative	Best Case	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.66	0.88	0.83	1.00	1.00	0.86	0.94	0.33	1.00	0.05

and visualized in Figure 2.

3.3. Insect Control in Pear Orchards

The Final Scenario Scores (FSS) for various insect control strategies in pear cultivation are presented in

Table 5. Final Scenario scores according to Equation (1) for alternative scenarios for insect control in pear cultivation.

Scenario	Pest Pressure	Final Score
Chemical alternative	High Pressure (Worst case)	0.93
Acetamiprid substitution	High Pressure (Worst case)	0.93
Organic alternative	High Pressure (Worst case)	0.58
Chemical alternative	Low Pressure (Best case)	0.71
Acetamiprid substitution	Low Pressure (Best case)	0.73
Organic alternative	Low Pressure (Best case)	0.27

. These scores represent the aggregated risk profiles calculated according to Equation (1). The capped relative risk scores $\left[\min \left(1,{\displaystyle \frac{R{I}_i}{R{I}_{ref}}}\right)\right]$ for each indicator is visually presented in Figure 3 and summarized in

Table 6. Overview of biodiversity, environmental and human risk indicator scores of alternative scenarios of insect control in pear orchards compared to the reference scenario with thiacloprid ($\mathrm{m}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}(1,{\displaystyle \frac{R{I}_i}{R{I}_{ref}}})$).

Scenario		Operator	Worker	Resident	Bystander	Consumer	GWP	Soil Persistence	Ground Water	Aquatic Organisms	EVA	Bees	Earth Worms	Birds
Chemical alternative	Worst Case	1.00	0.85	1.00	1.00	0.87	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.33
Acetamiprid	Worst Case	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.85	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.80	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.37
Organic Alternative	Worst Case	0.02	0.42	0.45	1.00	0.26	1.00	0.00	0.00	1.00	0.68	1.00	1.00	0.51
Chemical Alternative	Best Case	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.81	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.57	0.80	0.00	0.00	0.00
Acetamiprid	Best Case	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.85	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.52	1.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Organic Alternative	Best Case	0.11	0.22	0.00	0.73	0.00	1.00	0.00	0.00	0.59	0.63	0.00	0.00	0.00

. While the individual risk indicator scores are detailed in

Table A21. Total and individual risk indicator scores for active ingredients of the reference scenario under high pest pressure (worst case) for insect control in apple. The total scores (ALL) of the active substances are added in bold.

Active Ingredient	Soil Persistence	Ground Water	Aquatic Organisms	Birds	Earth Worms	Operator	Worker	Resident	Bystander	Consumer	Bees	EVA
ALL	3.04	2.21 × 10−2	4.72	1.90 × 10−2	1.00	1.58	8.30	1.96 × 105	7.41 × 101	1.68 × 10−5	1.49 × 105	4.22 × 102
paraffin oil	3.41 × 10−3	1.46 × 10−7	1.00	0.00	1.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.35 × 105	7.20 × 101
thiacloprid	1.05 × 10−4	0.00	3.16 × 10−1	3.19 × 10−3	1.27 × 10−4	1.72 × 10−2	1.00	2.15 × 104	4.62	1.77 × 10−6	7.83 × 101	5.02 × 101
imidacloprid	1.00	8.95 × 10−3	1.38 × 10−4	1.38 × 10−3	4.79 × 10−4	1.76 × 10−3	0.00	2.47 × 103	1.38	9.83 × 10−9	3.27 × 103	0.00
pirimicarb	4.32 × 10−3	0.00	1.00	1.11 × 10−2	4.27 × 10−5	3.20 × 10−3	8.93 × 10−1	4.48 × 103	4.62 × 10−1	8.43 × 10−7	1.01 × 102	2.56 × 101
hexythiazox	4.64 × 10−4	0.00	3.46 × 10−2	2.33 × 10−5	1.06 × 10−4	2.94 × 10−2	1.00	8.96 × 103	4.62	7.87 × 10−7	6.58 × 10−1	2.17 × 101
indoxacarb	3.28 × 10−2	9.31 × 10−9	1.93 × 10−2	0.00	9.09 × 10−6	2.49 × 10−1	1.00	9.14 × 103	0.00	5.90 × 10−6	2.42 × 103	2.13 × 101
thiacloprid	1.05 × 10−4	0.00	3.16 × 10−1	3.19 × 10−3	1.27 × 10−4	1.72 × 10−2	1.00	2.15 × 104	4.62	1.77 × 10−6	1.83 × 102	5.70 × 101
fenoxycarb	1.08 × 10−4	0.00	1.00	3.10 × 10−5	2.62 × 10−5	1.25 × 10−3	2.50 × 10−1	3.59 × 103	9.23 × 10−1	7.79 × 10−7	1.05	2.86 × 101
chlorantraniliprole	1.00	1.32 × 10−2	1.21 × 10−1	9.92 × 10−6	2.67 × 10−6	1.37 × 10−3	1.58 × 10−1	8.18 × 103	8.77	1.51 × 10−8	7.20	1.20 × 101
spirotetramat	1.01 × 10−4	1.46 × 10−7	8.98 × 10−3	6.98 × 10−5	1.67 × 10−5	5.00 × 10−3	1.00	1.51 × 104	2.59	8.26 × 10−7	3.20	1.79 × 101
tebufenpyrad	2.05 × 10−4	1.91 × 10−12	7.30 × 10−2	2.60 × 10−5	3.04 × 10−4	2.58 × 10−1	1.00	1.00 × 105	4.62 × 101	1.77 × 10−6	1.79 × 101	5.17 × 101
emamectin benzoate	1.00	1.46 × 10−7	5.69 × 10−1	0.00	4.23 × 10−6	1.00	1.00	7.32 × 102	0.00	2.36 × 10−6	7.41 × 103	5.24 × 101
(Z)-11-tetradecenyl acetate	0.00	0.00	1.42 × 10−1	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.20 × 101
(E, E)-dodeca-8,10-dienyl-acetate	0.00	0.00	1.20 × 10−1	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
codlemone	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.42 × 10−2

,

Table A22. Total and individual risk indicator scores for active ingredients of the reference scenario under low pest pressure (best case) for insect control in apple. The total scores (ALL) of the active substances are added in bold.

Active Ingredient	Soil Persistence	Ground Water	Aquatic Organisms	Birds	Earth Worms	Operator	Worker	Resident	Bystander	Consumer	Bees	EVA
ALL	1.00	1.46 × 10−7	1.63	3.34 × 10−3	2.83 × 10−4	3.77	5.00	1.10 × 104	1.37 × 101	7.11 × 10−6	8.27 × 101	1.55 × 102
thiacloprid	1.05 × 10−4	0.00	3.16 × 10−1	3.19 × 10−3	1.27 × 10−4	1.00	1.00	4.63 × 103	4.62	1.77 × 10−6	7.83 × 101	5.02 × 101
tebufenozide	1.00	0.00	1.03 × 10−2	2.42 × 10−5	6.24 × 10−6	1.00	1.00	4.33 × 102	9.23 × 10−1	2.95 × 10−6	5.11 × 10−1	2.41 × 101
hexythiazox	4.64 × 10−4	0.00	3.46 × 10−2	2.33 × 10−5	1.06 × 10−4	1.00	1.00	1.93 × 103	4.62	7.87 × 10−7	6.58 × 10−1	2.17 × 101
fenoxycarb	1.08 × 10−4	0.00	1.00	3.10 × 10−5	2.62 × 10−5	1.44 × 10−1	1.00	7.72 × 102	9.23 × 10−1	7.79 × 10−7	0.00	2.86 × 101
spirotetramat	1.01 × 10−4	1.46 × 10−7	8.98 × 10−3	6.98 × 10−5	1.67 × 10−5	6.21 × 10−1	1.00	3.24 × 103	2.59	8.26 × 10−7	3.20	1.79 × 101
(Z)-11-tetradecenyl acetate	0.00	0.00	1.42 × 10−1	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.20 × 101
(E, E)-dodeca-8,10-dienyl-acetate	0.00	0.00	1.20 × 10−1	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
codlemone	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.42 × 10−2

,

Table A23. Total and individual risk indicator scores for active ingredients of the chemical alternative scenario under high pest pressure (worst case) for insect control in apple. The total scores (ALL) of the active substances are added in bold.

Active Ingredient	Soil Persistence	Ground Water	Aquatic Organisms	Birds	Earth Worms	Operator	Worker	Resident	Bystander	Consumer	Bees	EVA
ALL	2.04	1.35 × 10−2	4.05	1.13 × 10−2	1.00	1.73	1.00 × 101	2.59 × 105	1.32 × 102	1.94 × 10−5	1.47 × 105	4.26 × 102
paraffin oil	3.41 × 10−4	1.46 × 10−7	1.00	0.00	1.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.35 × 105	7.20 × 101
spinosad	2.05 × 10−4	1.46 × 10−7	6.70 × 10−1	3.35 × 10−5	1.75 × 10−5	6.51 × 10−3	1.00	1.29 × 103	4.62 × 10−1	7.38 × 10−7	8.65 × 101	6.76 × 101
flonicamid	1.17 × 10−4	2.47 × 10−5	2.36 × 10−4	1.86 × 10−5	4.46 × 10−6	8.47 × 10−2	1.00	5.35 × 104	3.44 × 101	7.08 × 10−7	3.87	1.53 × 101
flonicamid	1.17 × 10−4	2.47 × 10−5	2.36 × 10−4	1.86 × 10−5	4.46 × 10−6	8.47 × 10−2	1.00	5.35 × 104	3.44 × 101	7.08 × 10−7	3.87	2.23 × 101
pirimicarb	4.32 × 10−3	0.00	1.00	1.11 × 10−2	4.27 × 10−5	3.20 × 10−3	8.93 × 10−1	4.48 × 103	4.62 × 10−1	8.43 × 10−7	1.01 × 102	3.58 × 101
hexythiazox	4.64 × 10−4	0.00	3.46 × 10−2	2.33 × 10−5	1.06 × 10−4	2.94 × 10−2	1.00	8.96 × 103	4.62	7.87 × 10−7	6.58 × 10−1	2.17 × 101
indoxacarb	3.28 × 10−2	9.31 × 10−9	1.93 × 10−2	0.00	9.09 × 10−6	2.49 × 10−1	1.00	9.14 × 103	0.00	5.90 × 10−6	2.42 × 103	2.13 × 101
cyantraniliprole	5.81 × 10−4	2.63 × 10−4	2.96 × 10−1	2.19 × 10−5	6.25 × 10−6	1.19 × 10−2	9.46 × 10−1	9.48 × 102	4.62 × 10−1	4.72 × 10−6	1.49 × 103	2.48 × 101
chlorantraniliprole	1.00	1.32 × 10−2	1.21 × 10−1	9.92 × 10−6	2.67 × 10−6	1.37 × 10−3	1.58 × 10−1	8.18 × 103	8.77	1.51 × 10−8	7.20	1.20 × 101
spirotetramat	1.01 × 10−4	1.46 × 10−7	8.98 × 10−3	6.98 × 10−5	1.67 × 10−5	5.00 × 10−3	1.00	1.51 × 104	2.59	8.26 × 10−7	3.20	1.79 × 101
tebufenpyrad	2.05 × 10−4	1.91 × 10−12	7.30 × 10−2	2.60 × 10−5	3.04 × 10−4	2.58 × 10−1	1.00	1.00 × 105	4.62 × 101	1.77 × 10−6	1.79 × 101	5.10 × 101
emamectin benzoate	1.00	1.46 × 10−7	5.69 × 10−1	0.00	4.23 × 10−6	1.00	1.00	3.41 × 103	0.00	2.36 × 10−6	7.41 × 103	5.24 × 101
(Z)-11-tetradecenyl acetate	0.00	0.00	1.42 × 10−1	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.20 × 101
(E, E)-dodeca-8,10-dienyl-acetate	0.00	0.00	1.20 × 10−1	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
codlemone	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.42 × 10−2

,

Table A24. Total and individual risk indicator scores for active ingredients of the chemical alternative scenario under low pest pressure (best case) for insect control in apple. The total scores (ALL) of the active substances are added in bold.

Active Ingredient	Soil Persistence	Ground Water	Aquatic Organisms	Birds	Earth Worms	Operator	Worker	Resident	Bystander	Consumer	Bees	EVA
ALL	2.00	1.32 × 10−2	5.21 × 10−1	1.73 × 10−4	1.43 × 10−4	1.34 × 10−1	4.16	9.00 × 104	5.13 × 101	5.29 × 10−6	1.63 × 101	1.11 × 102
flonicamid	1.17 × 10−4	2.47 × 10−5	2.36 × 10−4	1.86 × 10−5	4.46 × 10−6	8.47 × 10−2	1.00	5.35 × 104	3.44 × 101	7.08 × 10−7	3.87	2.32 × 101
hexythiazox	4.64 × 10−4	0.00	3.46 × 10−2	2.33 × 10−5	1.06 × 10−4	2.94 × 10−2	1.00	8.96 × 103	4.62	7.87 × 10−7	6.58 × 10−1	2.17 × 101
tebufenozide	1.00	0.00	9.38 × 10−2	5.19 × 10−5	1.34 × 10−5	1.33 × 10−2	1.00	4.30 × 103	9.23 × 10−1	2.95 × 10−6	1.35	2.41 × 101
chlorantraniliprole	1.00	1.32 × 10−2	1.21 × 10−1	9.92 × 10−6	2.67 × 10−6	1.37 × 10−3	1.58 × 10−1	8.18 × 103	8.77	1.51 × 10−8	7.20	1.20 × 101
spirotetramat	1.01 × 10−4	1.46 × 10−7	8.98 × 10−3	6.98 × 10−5	1.67 × 10−5	5.00 × 10−3	1.00	1.51 × 104	2.59	8.26 × 10−7	3.20	1.79 × 101
(Z)-11-tetradecenyl acetate	0.00	0.00	1.42 × 10−1	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.20 × 101
(E, E)-dodeca-8,10-dienyl-acetate	0.00	0.00	1.20 × 10−1	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
codlemone	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.42 × 10−2

,

Table A25. Total and individual risk indicator scores for active ingredients of the acetamiprid alternative scenario under high pest pressure (worst case) for insect control in apple. The total scores (ALL) of the active substances are added in bold.

Active Ingredient	Soil Persistence	Ground Water	Aquatic Organisms	Birds	Earth Worms	Operator	Worker	Resident	Bystander	Consumer	Bees	EVA
ALL	2.04	1.32 × 10−2	4.09	1.13 × 10−2	1.00	7.30	1.00 × 101	6.97 × 104	6.35 × 101	1.52 × 10−5	1.45 × 105	4.04 × 102
paraffin oil	3.41 × 10−3	1.46 × 10−7	1.00	0.00	1.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.35 × 105	7.20 × 101
acetamiprid	1.09 × 10−4	2.40 × 10−11	1.81 × 10−5	0.00	3.71 × 10−4	1.00	1.00	1.84 × 104	0.00	9.44 × 10−7	2.11 × 101	4.11 × 101
pirimicarb	4.32 × 10−3	0.00	1.00	1.11 × 10−2	4.27 × 10−5	3.51 × 10−1	1.00	9.65 × 102	4.62 × 10−1	8.43 × 10−7	1.01 × 102	2.56 × 101
hexythiazox	4.64 × 10−4	0.00	3.46 × 10−2	2.33 × 10−5	1.06 × 10−4	1.00	1.00	1.93 × 103	4.62	7.87 × 10−7	6.58 × 10−1	2.17 × 101
indoxacarb	3.28 × 10−2	9.31 × 10−9	1.93 × 10−2	0.00	9.09 × 10−6	1.00	1.00	1.97 × 103	0.00	5.90 × 10−6	2.42 × 103	2.13 × 101
acetamiprid	1.09 × 10−4	2.40 × 10−11	1.81 × 10−5	0.00	3.71 × 10−4	1.00	1.00	1.84 × 104	0.00	9.44 × 10−7	2.11 × 101	4.78 × 101
fenoxycarb	1.08 × 10−4	0.00	1.00	3.10 × 10−5	2.62 × 10−5	1.44 × 10−1	1.00	7.72 × 102	9.23 × 10−1	7.79 × 10−7	1.05	2.86 × 101
chlorantraniliprole	1.00	1.32 × 10−2	1.21 × 10−1	9.92 × 10−6	2.67 × 10−6	1.84 × 10−1	1.00	1.76 × 103	8.77	1.51 × 10−8	7.20	1.20 × 101
spirotetramat	1.01 × 10−4	1.46 × 10−7	8.98 × 10−3	6.98 × 10−5	1.67 × 10−5	6.21 × 10−1	1.00	3.24 × 103	2.59	8.26 × 10−7	3.20	1.79 × 101
tebufenpyrad	2.05 × 10−4	1.91 × 10−12	7.30 × 10−2	2.60 × 10−5	3.04 × 10−4	1.00	1.00	2.16 × 104	4.62 × 101	1.77 × 10−6	1.79 × 101	5.17 × 101
emamectin benzoate	1.00	1.46 × 10−7	5.69 × 10−1	0.00	4.23 × 10−6	1.00	1.00	7.32 × 102	0.00	2.36 × 10−6	7.41 × 103	5.24 × 101
(Z)-11-tetradecenyl acetate	0.00	0.00	1.42 × 10−1	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.20 × 101
(E, E)-dodeca-8,10-dienyl-acetate	0.00	0.00	1.20 × 10−1	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
codlemone	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.42 × 10−2

,

Table A26. Total and individual risk indicator scores for active ingredients of the acetamiprid alternative scenario under low pest pressure (best case) for insect control in apple. The total scores (ALL) of the active substances are added in bold.

Active Ingredient	Soil Persistence	Ground Water	Aquatic Organisms	Birds	Earth Worms	Operator	Worker	Resident	Bystander	Consumer	Bees	EVA
ALL	1.00	1.46 × 10−7	1.40	1.76 × 10−4	5.34 × 10−4	3.77	5.00	2.53 × 104	9.05	6.29 × 10−6	2.74 × 10−1	1.45 × 10−2
acetamiprid	1.09 × 10−4	2.40 × 10−11	1.81 × 10−5	0.00	3.71 × 10−4	1.00	1.00	1.84 × 104	0.00	9.44 × 10−7	2.11 × 10−1	4.11 × 10−1
tebufenozide	1.00	0.00	9.38 × 10−2	5.19 × 10−5	1.34 × 10−5	1.00	1.00	9.26 × 102	9.23 × 10−1	2.95 × 10−6	1.35	2.41 × 10−1
hexythiazox	4.64 × 10−4	0.00	3.46 × 10−2	2.33 × 10−5	1.06 × 10−4	1.00	1.00	1.93 × 103	4.62	7.87 × 10−7	6.58 × 10−2	2.17 × 10−1
fenoxycarb	1.08 × 10−4	0.00	1.00	3.10 × 10−5	2.62 × 10−5	1.44 × 10−1	1.00	7.72 × 102	9.23 × 10−1	7.79 × 10−7	1.05	2.86 × 10−1
spirotetramat	1.01 × 10−4	1.46 × 10−7	8.98 × 10−3	6.98 × 10−5	1.67 × 10−5	6.21 × 10−1	1.00	3.24 × 103	2.59	8.26 × 10−7	3.20	1.79 × 10−1
(Z)-11-tetradecenyl acetate	0.00	0.00	1.42 × 10−1	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.20 × 10−1
(E,E)-dodeca-8,10-dienyl-acetate	0.00	0.00	1.20 × 10−1	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
codlemone	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.42 × 10−2

,

Table A27. Total and individual risk indicator scores for active ingredients of the organic alternative scenario under high pest pressure (worst case) for insect control in apple. The total scores (ALL) of the active substances are added in bold.

Active Ingredient	Soil Persistence	Ground Water	Aquatic Organisms	Birds	Earth Worms	Operator	Worker	Resident	Bystander	Consumer	Bees	EVA
ALL	4.40 × 10−3	1.33 × 10−6	4.58	4.61 × 10−4	1.00	2.51	3.00	2.70 × 104	9.33 × 101	3.54 × 10−6	1.54 × 105	4.58 × 102
paraffin oil	3.41 × 10−3	1.46 × 10−7	1.00	0.00	1.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.35 × 105	7.20 × 101
rapeseed oil	1.05 × 10−4	0.00	1.00	NA	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.17 × 104	4.46 × 101
pyrethrins (cinerin I)	1.11 × 10−4	1.46 × 10−7	1.90 × 10−1	8.35 × 10−7	2.16 × 10−4	0.00	0.00	1.77 × 104	4.62 × 101	1.48 × 10−6	7.54 × 103	7.44 × 101
spinosad	2.05 × 10−4	1.46 × 10−7	6.70 × 10−1	3.35 × 10−5	1.75 × 10−5	7.53 × 10−1	1.00	2.77 × 102	4.62 × 10−1	7.38 × 10−7	8.65 × 101	6.76 × 101
azadirachtin A	1.29 × 10−4	7.48 × 10−7	9.90 × 10−3	2.09 × 10−5	2.51 × 10−6	1.00	1.00	8.69 × 103	4.62 × 101	5.90 × 10−7	5.43	2.42 × 101
B. thuringiensis subsp. aizawai strain ABTS-1857	1.15 × 10−4	7.42 × 10−15	2.79 × 10−1	1.86 × 10−4	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.25 × 101
B. thuringiensis subsp. aizawai strain ABTS-1857	1.15 × 10−4	7.42 × 10−15	2.79 × 10−1	1.86 × 10−4	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.25 × 101
spinosad	2.05 × 10−4	1.46 × 10−7	6.70 × 10−1	3.35 × 10−5	1.75 × 10−5	7.53 × 10−1	1.00	2.77 × 102	4.62 × 10−1	7.38 × 10−7	8.65 × 101	5.11 × 101
C. pomonella granulosis virus	0.00	0.00	4.05 × 10−17	2.09 × 10−18	2.51 × 10−18	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	4.81 × 10−13	1.25 × 101
C. pomonella granulosis virus	0.00	0.00	4.05 × 10−17	2.09 × 10−18	2.51 × 10−18	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	4.81 × 10−13	1.25 × 101
C. pomonella granulosis virus	0.00	0.00	4.05 × 10−17	2.09 × 10−18	2.51 × 10−18	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	4.81 × 10−13	1.25 × 101
C. pomonella granulosis virus	0.00	0.00	4.05 × 10−17	2.09 × 10−18	2.51 × 10−18	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	4.81 × 10−13	1.25 × 101
A. orana granulovirus	0.00	0.00	6.74 × 10−17	3.49 × 10−18	4.18 × 10−18	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.25 × 101
A. orana granulovirus	0.00	0.00	6.74 × 10−17	3.49 × 10−18	4.18 × 10−18	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.25 × 101
(Z)-11-tetradecenyl acetate	0.00	0.00	1.42 × 10−1	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.20 × 101
(E, E)-dodeca-8,10-dienyl-acetate	0.00	0.00	1.20 × 10−1	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
codlemone	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.42 × 10−2
codlemone	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.42 × 10−2	1.25 × 101
(Z)-11-tetradecenyl acetate	0.00	0.00	1.05 × 10−1	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
(E, E)-dodeca-8,10-dienyl-acetate 8,10-dodecadienyl acetate	0.00	0.00	8.75 × 10−2	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
(Z)-9-tetradeceen-1-ylacetaat	0.00	0.00	2.03 × 10−2	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
1-dodecanol	0.00	0.00	6.57 × 10−3	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
tetradecaan-1-ol	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00

and

Table A28. Total and individual risk indicator scores for active ingredients of the organic alternative scenario under low pest pressure (best case) for insect control in apple. The total scores (ALL) of the active substances are added in bold.

Active Ingredient	Soil Persistence	Ground Water	Aquatic Organisms	Birds	Earth Worms	Operator	Worker	Resident	Bystander	Consumer	Bees	EVA
ALL	2.44 × 10−4	7.48 × 10−7	5.51 × 10−1	2.07 × 10−4	2.51 × 10−6	1.00	1.00	8.69 × 103	4.62 × 101	5.90 × 10−7	7.15	9.87 × 101
azadirachtin A	1.29 × 10−4	7.48 × 10−7	9.90 × 10−3	2.09 × 10−5	2.51 × 10−6	1.00	1.00	8.69 × 103	4.62 × 101	5.90 × 10−7	7.13	1.25 × 101
B. thuringiensis subsp. aizawai strain ABTS-1857	1.15 × 10−4	7.42 × 10−15	2.79 × 10−1	1.86 × 10−4	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	2.42 × 101
C. pomonella granulosis virus	0.00	0.00	4.05 × 10−17	2.09 × 10−18	2.51 × 10−18	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	4.81 × 10−13	1.25 × 101
C. pomonella granulosis virus	0.00	0.00	4.05 × 10−17	2.09 × 10−18	2.51 × 10−18	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	4.81 × 10−13	1.25 × 101
C. pomonella granulosis virus	0.00	0.00	4.05 × 10−17	2.09 × 10−18	2.51 × 10−18	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	4.81 × 10−13	1.25 × 101
C. pomonella granulosis virus	0.00	0.00	4.05 × 10−17	2.09 × 10−18	2.51 × 10−18	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	4.81 × 10−13	1.25 × 101
(Z)-11-tetradecenyl acetate	0.00	0.00	1.42 × 10−1	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.20 × 101
(E, E)-dodeca-8,10-dienyl-acetate	0.00	0.00	1.20 × 10−1	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
codlemone	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.42 × 10−2

, the FSS provides a comprehensive overview for comparing the scenarios. A key finding is the strong performance of the organic alternative, which achieved the lowest FSS in both the best-case (0.27) and worst-case (0.65) models. Both scores comfortably meet the justification threshold. This superior performance is driven by substantial risk reductions across nearly all indicators. In the best-case scenario, improvements are seen across the board. In the more challenging worst-case scenario, only the indicators for aquatic organisms, earthworms, bystanders, and beneficial organisms (EVA indicator) do not show improvement compared to the reference with thiacloprid. The chemical alternative and the acetamiprid substitution score just below the threshold (0.71 and 0.73, respectively), justifying a replacement of the reference scenario. This is not the case for the worst-case scenario, where they score identically high FSS (0.93).

4. Discussion

4.1. Insect Control in Sugar Beet

Across all alternative scenarios, the Human Health risk indicators show little to no improvement, often remaining near the 1.00 reference level. This is primarily because the move from a seed coating (highly targeted and low exposure) to multiple foliar spray applications increases the potential exposure for professional users and bystanders, thus counterbalancing any intrinsic reduction in the substance’s toxicity.

The score improvement in the best-case scenario was driven by substantial reductions in the risk indicators for bees (RI_Bees), groundwater (RI_{Ground Water}), and soil persistence (RI_{Soil Persistence}), as detailed in Table 1 and Figure 1. However, as pest pressure increased, requiring up to four foliar applications (worst-case scenario), the risk scores for RI_Bees, RI_Birds, and RI_Earthworms escalated, pushing the FSS to 0.85. The introduction of a secondary pest, such as Atomaria linearis (pygmy mangle beetle), requiring lambda-cyhalothrin further increased the RI_{Soil Persistence} score, resulting in an FSS of 0.91.

While the FSS model suggests that replacing neonicotinoids is only viable under low pest pressure, a critical analysis of the alternative active substances reveals significant regulatory and practical challenges. The alternative scenarios rely heavily on insecticides that are no longer approved (e.g., spirotetramat, expired 30 April 2024 and sulfoxaflor, expired 18 August 2025) or are designated as “Candidates for Substitution” with an uncertain future (e.g., lambda-cyhalothrin).

The only remaining alternative used in the modelling, flonicamid, presents its own profound environmental concerns. Research confirms that flonicamid degrades into persistent PFAS-metabolites, including trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), 4-trifluoromethylnicotinic acid (TFNA), and N-(4-trifluoromethylnicotinoyl)glycine (TFNG), which may threaten its long-term authorization [24,32].

This diminishing arsenal of authorized and effective chemicals forces a reliance on older active substances like pyrethroids (e.g., deltamethrin) and carbamates (e.g., pirimicarb). However, their efficacy is severely compromised. Pyrethroids are contact insecticides, making them less effective against aphids feeding on the underside of leaves. More critically, significant aphid resistance to both pyrethroids and pirimicarb is well-documented in Belgium [33] and other regions [34,35,36]. Moreover, their non-selective, broad-spectrum activity poses a considerable risk to beneficial insect populations, disrupting natural pest control [37,38,39]. This complex situation leads to a difficult conclusion for farmers, as they are increasingly left with a diminishing toolbox of active substances. While flonicamid-based products are the main tool for aphid control in Belgian sugar beet in 2025, the toolbox is temporarily expanded to include products with spirotetramat and acetamiprid, available through emergency authorizations. Additionally, products from the pyrethroid (e.g., deltamethrin, tau-fluvalinate) and carbamate (pirimicarb) families are still authorized, but they are no longer recommended due to widespread aphid resistance [40].

A comprehensive review by Verheggen et al. (2022) [41] highlighted that a specific benefit/risk analysis for alternatives is needed, noting that more than half of the identified alternative methods (synthetic and natural insecticides, entomopathogenic fungi, arthropod natural enemies, organic and mineral oils, plant defense elicitors, farming practices and resistant beet varieties) could pose their own concerns for biodiversity or durability. Furthermore, it is clear that most alternative scenarios will be more expensive for farmers to implement than the use of neonicotinoid-coated seeds, at least in the initial years due to supply and demand. These findings further underscore that the path forward cannot be a single one-for-one substitution. Instead, the focus must be on the combined use of multiple, complementary methods within a robust IPM strategy, as most alternative methods provide insufficient control when used alone. The ideal strategy should maintain sugar beet yields while managing the complex trade-offs between efficacy, cost, and environmental safety. The urgency to develop, validate, and implement these integrated systems is greater than ever, as farmers cannot be left without effective and economically viable solutions to protect their crops. Cost, adaptability and feasibility of neonicotinoid alternatives are important factors that are not included in this decision-support grid, but they need to be explored before making a decision to remove crop protection products from the market.

4.2. Insect Control in Apple Orchards

The FSS values suggest that organic scenarios present the lowest risk in insect control in apple orchards, these FSS must be interpreted with a critical understanding of the efficacy of pest control. A direct comparison based solely on risk indicators is misleading, as it overlooks the potential for significant crop damage from pests that are insufficiently controlled by organic-approved methods. The primary challenge for organic apple production in Belgium is the limited toolkit available under EU Regulation 2021/116. This regulation restricts plant protection to natural substances like azadirachtin, Bacillus thuringiensis, granuloviruses, spinosad, and pheromones. This arsenal is currently insufficient for managing two key (secondary) pests: the codling moth (Cydia pomonella) and the woolly apple aphid (Eriosoma lanigerum). In a worst-case scenario, no authorized organic products can effectively control these pests. For instance, the woolly apple aphid, with its protective wax coating and root-colonizing ability, is notoriously difficult to manage [42,43]. Although lime sulphur shows promise, it is not currently authorized for this specific use in organic farming. Therefore, while the organic scenarios are included for a comprehensive overview, their favourable risk scores do not translate to practical viability under high pest pressure due to these significant efficacy gaps. This highlights a crucial conflict between risk reduction and the practical need for effective pest management to ensure crop yield and quality.

The chemical alternative scenario shows favourable results in the best-case scenario (FSS = 0.64), meeting the justification threshold (<0.75) for replacing the reference neonicotinoid scenario. Substantial improvements are found at most indicators, excluding RI_{Soil Persistence}, RI_{Ground Water}, RI_Worker, RI_Resident, RI_Bystander and RI_GWP. However, in the worst-case scenario, showing only improvements at RI_{Soil persistence}, RI_{Ground Water} and RI_Birds, its FSS of 0.91 does not justify replacing the reference scenario with thiacloprid. More importantly this comes with an efficiency gap of no available authorized products to effectively control Symphyta and the apple fruit weevil. Similarly, albeit showing some improvements in environmental and biodiversity risk indicators, the acetamiprid substitution fails to meet the threshold in either scenario (FSS = 0.81 and 0.83). This suggests that under high pest pressure, currently available chemical alternatives do not present a sufficiently improved risk profile to justify a replacement of the established, more effective options.

This analysis underscores that a successful long-term strategy must be rooted in an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) framework rather than a direct chemical-for-chemical substitution, as previously highlighted by other authors [44]. An optimal IPM approach would utilize the chemical alternative scenario as its foundation, supplementing it with non-chemical tactics such as mating disruption for key pests, enhanced biological controls, and pest population monitoring to further lower risks to human health, biodiversity, and the environment.

However, in challenging, high-pressure seasons where these combined tactics are insufficient, this framework still allows for the targeted application of acetamiprid, the last remaining neonicotinoid, as a corrective measure of last resort to ensure crop protection. While going from single pesticide risk analysis to multi-pesticide risk analysis can be considered a more holistic approach, Heller et al. (2022) [45] suggest one should also consider the formulated products.

4.3. Insect Control in Pear Orchards

The favourable risk scores in the alternative scenarios of insect control in pear orchards must be interpreted with caution, as the model does not account for differences pest control efficacy. This is especially the case for organic agriculture, as the primary challenge for organic pear production is managing pests like mussel scale (Lepidosaphes ulmi), pear midge (Contarinia pyrivora), sawflies (Symphyta) or the pear sucker (Cacopsylla pyri), pests notorious for the damage to fruit yield and quality they cause [46,47]. The limited arsenal of organic-approved substances is often insufficient to control severe infestations, leading to a high risk of damage to fruit yield and overall tree health. Therefore, while organic production represents a low-ecotoxicological-risk system, the practical viability of isolating its pest control strategies for use within conventional pome fruit systems is questionable. This approach faces a critical efficacy gap, especially under high pest pressure, as it does not account for the systemic differences in cultivars, soil health, and economic thresholds that are integral to organic success.

Analysing the synthetic insecticide scenarios, both the chemical alternative (FSS = 0.71) and the acetamiprid substitution (FSS = 0.73) meet the justification threshold in the best-case (low pest pressure) model. This indicates that under favourable conditions, replacing the neonicotinoid reference is possible without a significant increase in the overall risk profile. The most important risk reductions in these scenarios were observed for the environmental indicators of birds, earthworms, aquatic organisms, and bees. However, the situation changes under high pest pressure. In the worst-case scenario, both the chemical alternative and the acetamiprid substitution score an FSS of 0.93. Showing only a substantial improvement in RI_Birds in both cases, both scenarios fail to justify the replacement of the reference scenario with thiacloprid. This demonstrates that the current portfolio of alternative chemical insecticides does not provide a sufficiently robust solution for managing pear pests during challenging seasons. Additionally, under high pest pressure the chemical alternative (worst-case) scenario provides not sufficient control for the pear midge. Moreover, the long-term effects on the development of secondary pests and newly established pest insects (invasive species) remain a major unknown. This reliance on narrow-spectrum agents introduces uncertainty regarding the long-term management of these pests, a risk that was historically mitigated by the preventative effects of broad-spectrum agents.

4.4. Limitations of the Proposed Framework

The proposed decision-support grid, while providing a more holistic risk assessment, is subject to several limitations. The Global Warming Potential (GWP) calculations, for instance, were based exclusively on publicly available data from the Agribalyse database, encompassing only the transportation of pesticides to the field and their subsequent application in the field. For a more comprehensive Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), it is crucial to integrate the environmental footprint associated with the production and formulation of both chemical pesticides and biological control agents, as these upstream processes can substantially contribute to overall GWP.

Furthermore, the EVA-indicator, a key component of our biodiversity risk assessment for beneficial arthropods, currently faces limitations in its applicability. While it offers a robust assessment for foliar applications in specific crop contexts, its current design cannot assess the impact of seed coatings, a crucial application method in certain scenarios, such as the sugar beet reference. This necessitated assigning a baseline risk score in these specific instances, which may not fully capture the nuanced effects. Additionally, the EVA-indicator’s effectiveness is primarily validated for pome fruit orchards and requires further development and validation for broader application across diverse crop types.

It is crucial to understand that the Final Scenario Score evaluates risk, not field performance. Our methodology aimed for comparable pest control efficacy across scenarios by defining treatments and frequencies. However, since this efficacy can still be lacking, our results underscore that a low-risk profile does not guarantee sufficient pest suppression or prevent crop loss, as highlighted in the discussions for apple and pear orchards. Future iterations of this decision-support tool could benefit from incorporating a measure of efficacy, as well as other important factors not yet included such as feasibility, cost and land use to provide an even more complete picture for agricultural decision-makers. Instead of looking only at the FSS, decision-makers and field advisors should also examine the underlying risk indicators. The FSS offers an initial insight into which insect control scenario presents a lower risk profile, but a well-founded decision requires a thorough analysis of the individual factors contributing to the final score. This deeper look is crucial for pinpointing specific challenges and opportunities within each alternative strategy.

Finally, establishing scenarios with comparable pest control efficacy is a complex undertaking that demands expert knowledge of pest emergence, regulations, and pesticide performance. However, the systematic process developed in this framework makes it a valuable and adaptable tool for assessing other candidates for substitution.

5. Conclusions

The proposed decision-support grid introduces a novel, integrated framework for evaluating the complex trade-offs inherent in pest management. This approach moves beyond conventional single-substance assessments by enabling the evaluation of multi-pesticide strategies across an entire agricultural season. This seasonal perspective is critical, as the withdrawal of a high-risk product often necessitates multiple replacement applications to maintain efficacy. Furthermore, by incorporating a comprehensive range of indicators spanning human and environmental health, the grid facilitates a broad assessment, avoiding the limitations of analyses focused on a single metric. Ultimately, this tool provides a more robust and realistic basis for developing sustainable and balanced pest control strategies. Case studies in sugar beet, apple, and pear cultivation clearly demonstrate the challenges and opportunities posed by evolving regulatory landscapes, particularly concerning neonicotinoids.

In sugar beet, only the best-case scenario justified neonicotinoid replacement. Under increased pest pressure (worst case), replacement was not justified and led to an unfavourable risk profile. For apple orchards, organic alternatives consistently met the threshold, and the chemical alternative was viable in best-case scenarios. However, in worst-case apple scenarios, both chemical alternative and acetamiprid substitution failed. Similarly, in pear orchards, organic options and certain chemical alternatives (in the best-case scenarios) met the criterion; yet, under high pest pressure, neither justified replacing the reference.

While organic alternatives consistently exhibit the lowest risk profiles, their current efficacy limitations against current pests often prevent sufficient pest control, particularly under high pest pressure. Similarly, chemical alternatives, while offering some improvements, often fail to justify a complete replacement of established, more effective options, especially in challenging scenarios. This research underscores that chemical strategy substitution is frequently insufficient. Instead, the path forward lies in robust, multifaceted Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies that strategically combine chemical and biological controls to reduce environmental and health impacts. Continued research and development into new, effective, and environmentally sustainable pest control tools, alongside the widespread adoption of comprehensive IPM frameworks, is important to ensure sustainable food production in the face of ongoing environmental concerns, climate change and regulatory pressure.