There is currently no reliable evidence of a widespread, global collapse of the insect world, according to the Genetic Literacy Project article. Instead, the data paint a more nuanced picture: while some species are indeed declining in certain regions, others are increasing – often even in the same landscapes. A recent review of scientific studies shows that many of the dramatic headlines are based on selectively chosen individual studies rather than globally valid data sets.

Complex causes

A recurring theme in the public debate is the blanket blame placed on agriculture – especially synthetic pesticides. However, experts urge caution: there are many reasons for the decline of some insect species. These include, above all, the loss of habitats due to urbanisation, the fragmentation of landscapes by infrastructure, climate change, light pollution, invasive species, diseases and parasites. A recent study even shows that covering the ground with crops such as maize, soybeans, wheat or hay is associated with an increase in insect populations.

Pesticides can have an impact on non-target organisms if they are used improperly. In practice, however, modern pesticides are strictly regulated. They undergo extensive approval procedures and are therefore among the most thoroughly tested chemicals. Research shows that when used properly, the risks to insects are low.

The honeybee as a counterexample

The honeybee is often used as a symbol of insect decline. However, it is precisely this species that shows that blanket crisis rhetoric is misplaced. The number of honeybee colonies has been increasing in many European countries for years. Worldwide, the population of these ‘beneficial insects’ is stable or even growing. This is due in part to modern beekeeping, targeted support and close cooperation between farmers and beekeepers. This development shows that agriculture and insect protection do not have to be mutually exclusive. On the contrary, they can complement each other if the interaction is well coordinated.

And the so-called bird apocalypse never really got off the ground, as the article points out: 'After a few questionable studies, it quickly became clear that the earlier decline in bird populations in the 1990s had stabilised and even reversed. Incidentally, the real bird killers are cats, both wild and domestic. According to estimates, they kill between 1.3 and 4 billion birds a year in the United States alone.' However, banning cats is unpopular, which is why many politicians are reluctant to touch this hot potato.

The media bears responsibility

The article by the Genetic Literacy Project shows one thing above all: it is fatal for the objective assessment of serious issues when ideologically driven science meets alarmist media reporting. Many studies suffer from methodological weaknesses, insufficient replicability and selective data interpretation. This is not a problem as long as their results are not presented as definitive truths in order to generate apocalyptic headlines. Often, things are simplified, dramatised and generalised. The result is an emotional debate in which there is little room for scientific differentiation. But that is exactly what is needed – a fact-based discussion that leaves room for regional differences, long-term trends and various influencing factors if we want to seriously tackle a problem rather than just generate attention.

Insect diversity is under pressure in many regions – that is undisputed. But if we want to effectively combat its decline, we need a clear picture of the situation. Alarmist headlines may generate attention in the short term. But in the long run, they damage the credibility of the debate – and do not lead to better solutions. The bottom line is that we need better scientific data and policies based on knowledge rather than gut feelings. Only in this way can biodiversity and agriculture be developed together – for the benefit of nature, people and food security.