Plain Language Summary: Role of science and scientists in public debates around environmental policy negotiations: the case of nature restoration and agrochemical regulation in the European Union.

By Guy Pe’er^1a,2,*, Jana Kachler^1a,2,3,4, Irina Herzon⁵, Daniel Hering⁶, Anni Arponen⁷, Laura Bosco⁸, Helge Bruelheide^9,2, Elizabeth A. Finch^1a,2,3, Martin Friedrichs-Manthey^1a,2,3, Gregor Hagedorn¹⁰, Bernd Hansjürgens^1b,11, Emma Ladouceur^1c,2, Sebastian Lakner¹², Camino Liquete¹³, Laura López-Hoffman¹⁴, Isabel Sousa Pinto¹⁵, Marine Robuchon¹³, Nuria Selva^16,17,18, Josef Settele^1d,2,19, Clélia Sirami²⁰, Nicole M. van Dam^2,3,21, Heidi Wittmer^1e, Aletta Bonn^1a,2,3

Read the full paper here.

Efficient environmental policies are urgently needed globally, to combat critical challenges including climate change, biodiversity losses, water scarcity and land degradation. But there is an increasing tendency of some actors to contest environmental protection policies, often using misinformation or pseudo-scientific claims. It is critical that scientists weigh in on such public debates, to provide an unbiased assessment of the science, and help prevent erroneous arguments from influencing decision-making.

This paper illustrates how in the European Union, two regulatory proposals within the Green Deal – the Nature Restoration Regulation (NRR) and the Sustainable Use Regulation (SUR) – came under attack where opponents introduced misleading claims and disinformation. We examine eight of the arguments raised against the NRR and SUR and compare them with scientific evidence. Using these examples, we illustrate a global problem and how science can deal with misinformation. We also examine the fate of the two regulations: the NRR was adopted in June 2024, while the SUR was rejected. We emphasise the crucial role of scientists in enabling evidence-based dialogues toward environmental sustainability, and call scientists to proactively review and refute unsubstantiated claims falling in their realms of expertise.