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

作者：Guy Pe’er, Jana Kachler, Irina Herzon, Daniel Hering, Anni Arponen, Laura Bosco, Helge Bruelheide, Elizabeth A. Finch, Martin Friedrichs‐Manthey, Gregor Hagedorn, Bernd Hansjürgens, Emma Ladouceur, Sebastian Lakner, Camino Liquete, Laura López‐Hoffman, Isabel Sousa‐Pinto, Marine Robuchon, Nuria Selva, Josef Settele, Clélia Sirami, Nicole M. van Dam, Heidi Wittmer, Aletta Bonn · 发表于：People and Nature · 年份：2025 · DOI：10.1002/pan3.70064 · 被引用次数：5 · 研究领域：Environmental Education and Sustainability、Climate Change Communication and Perception、Economic and Environmental Valuation

Abstract Halting biodiversity loss, mitigating global warming and maintaining the long‐term viability of rural and urban areas requires urgent policy action. However, environmental policies often trigger resistance and highly polarised public debates, with some actors employing pseudo‐scientific claims. This raises concern about the increasing impact of misinformation on policymaking. Here, we analyse the role of science and scientists in the public debate around two pieces of legislation that were proposed in 2022 by the European Commission as part of the Green Deal, namely the Nature Restoration Regulation (NRR) and the Sustainable Use Regulation (SUR) of plant protection products. First, we examine key claims against these two legislative proposals and contrast them with scientific evidence. We show that these claims fail to consider ample scientific evidence that restoring nature and reducing the use of agrochemicals are essential for maintaining long‐term agricultural production and enhancing food security. Critics further failed to acknowledge that the NRR and SUR may generate new employment opportunities and stimulate innovation, with high return rates and multiple beneficiaries across society, fostering a transition to sustainable production and consumption models. Second, we examine how the publication of an open letter, signed by 6000 scientists, may have influenced the public debate. We contrast the role that scientific evidence played in the fate of the NRR, which...