Biological effects of electromagnetic fields on insects: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Biological effects of electromagnetic fields on insects: a systematic review and meta-analysis Thill A, Cammaerts MC, Balmori A. Biological effects of electromagnetic fields on insects: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Environ Health. 2023 Nov 23. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2023-0072. Abstract Worldwide, insects are declining at an alarming rate. Among other causes, the use of pesticides and modern agricultural practices play a major role in this. Cumulative effects of multiple low-dose toxins and the distribution of toxicants in nature have only started to be investigated in a methodical way. Existing research indicates another factor of anthropogenic origin that could have subtle harmful effects: the increasingly frequent use of electromagnetic fields (EMF) from man-made technologies. This systematic review summarizes the results of studies investigating the toxicity of electromagnetic fields in insects. The main objective of this review is to weigh the evidence regarding detrimental effects on insects from the increasing technological infrastructure, with a particular focus on power lines and the cellular network. The next generation of mobile communication technologies, 5G, is being deployed - without having been tested in respect of potential toxic effects. With humanity's quest for pervasiveness of technology, even modest effects of electromagnetic fields on organisms could eventually reach a saturation level that can no longer be ignored. An overview of reported effects and biological mechanisms of exposure to electromagnetic fields, which addresses new findings in cell biology, is included. Biological effects of non-thermal EMF on insects are clearly proven in the laboratory, but only partly in the field, thus the wider ecological implications are still unknown. There is a need for more field studies, but extrapolating from the laboratory, as is common practice in ecotoxicology, already warrants increasing the threat level of environmental EMF impact on insects. Excerpt Looking back at the history of science, it seems that adverse effects have frequently been reported early on, but mostly been ignored – e.g. in the cases of asbestos, lead and cigarettes. It has typically taken decades to understand the mechanisms of toxicity and for the official position to shift. The European Environment Agency EEA has produced several reports on this topic under the title “Late lessons from early warnings” [146, 147]. Thirty-six of the fifty-five HF-EMF studies reported in this review used field strengths lower than 6 V/m (∼100 mW/m2), and 31 of these 36 studies (86 %) nevertheless found statistically significant adverse effects, starting at about 2 V/m and peaking around 6 V/m. This is below the regulatory thresholds established by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) (41 V/m, or 61 V/m above 2 GHz), and even below the particularly stringent installation limits only found in a handful of countries [94]. (The installation limit is measured where people can stay for long periods of time, i.e. homes, schools, working places and playgrounds for kids.) Panagopoulos et al. detected a bioactive window at a distance of 20–30 cm from GSM mobile phones, where the power density equaled 100 mW/m2 (∼6 V/m), and where toxic effects in Drosophila are already observed after a 1-min exposure. These results have been replicated several times [148], [149], [150]. If this is generally true for insects, the limit for toxic effects would be 100 times below the current ICNIRP limit (10 W/m2 or 61 V/m), which protects only against thermal effects (in humans), and possibly 1,000 times lower than current limits for chronic exposure, i.e. 10 mW/m2 or 2 V/m (all comparisons based on power densities, i.e. energy per surface area units) [94]. A recent study found significant effects on gene transcription and chromosomal abnormalities using a WiFi signal at 4.8 mW/m2 or 1.35 V/m in Drosophila exposed for 9 days [145]. These findings of biological effects in insects starting at around 2 V/m imply that existing standards would have to be revised and made more stringent, to include nature protection/wild-life concerns. Current ambient power densities are generally still below 10 or 100 mW/m2 (i.e. 2 or 6 V/m). A recent study measured values of 0.17–0.53 V/m in the field (0.1–0.8 mW/m2) [101]. Values mainly in the range of 0.5–1 V/m were found around schools in Crete [151]. Nationwide measurements of the National Observatory of electromagnetic fields (NOEF) in Greece found average values higher than 1 V/m in 55 % of sites, and values greater than 2 V/m in 20 % of measurement sites [152]. A recent review lists power densities ranging from 0.23 V/m in Swiss residential areas to 1.85 V/m in an Australian university neighborhood [86]. In urban hot spots (UK), a maximum of 150 mW/m2 (7.5 V/m) and an average of 25 mW/m2 (3.3 V/m) were measured (including WiFi) [153]. The French “Agence nationale des fréquences” (ANFR) found an average of 1.17 V/m at 1,300 5G base stations, and the authors expect a 20 % increase in the next years [154]. In Belgium, Italy, Switzerland, Russia and China, the installation limit is 6 V/m (100 mW/m2) for mobile telephony base stations, whereas Germany, the UK, the USA and many other countries adhere to the much higher ICNIRP limits [94, 155]. The ICNIRP limits have recently been questioned, since they are based on findings from more than 20 years ago, and their assumptions have been proven false [156]. Furthermore, the ICNIRP limits are designed to protect humans and have not been tested as to their adequacy in protecting wildlife and insects [157]. Open access paper: degruyter.com

AI evidence extraction

Main findings

This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes studies on electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure and insect outcomes, focusing particularly on power lines and cellular networks. The abstract states that non-thermal EMF effects on insects are clearly demonstrated in laboratory studies but only partly in field studies, leaving broader ecological implications uncertain. The excerpt reports that many included HF-EMF studies found statistically significant adverse effects at field strengths below common regulatory limits and argues this may warrant more stringent standards to consider wildlife protection.

Outcomes measured

• Toxicity/adverse biological effects in insects
• Gene transcription changes
• Chromosomal abnormalities
• Laboratory vs field effects (ecological implications)

Limitations

• Publication year, methods, and quantitative meta-analysis results are not provided in the abstract.
• Field evidence is described as only partial, and wider ecological implications are stated to be unknown.
• The abstract emphasizes extrapolation from laboratory findings, which may not directly translate to real-world ecological effects.
• Specific inclusion criteria, risk-of-bias assessment, and heterogeneity across insect species/exposure conditions are not described in the provided text.

Suggested hubs

• power-lines (0.78)
  The review explicitly highlights power lines as a focus for insect-related EMF effects.
• cell-phones (0.74)
  Cellular networks and GSM mobile phones are discussed as key RF-EMF sources with reported insect effects.
• wifi (0.62)
  WiFi exposure is mentioned in relation to reported gene transcription and chromosomal effects in insects.
• 5g-policy (0.46)
  The abstract discusses 5G deployment and notes lack of testing for potential toxic effects in this context.
• who-icnirp (0.55)
  The excerpt compares reported effect levels to ICNIRP limits and questions their adequacy for wildlife.

{
    "publication_year": 2023,
    "study_type": "meta_analysis",
    "exposure": {
        "band": "RF",
        "source": "power lines and cellular network; WiFi; GSM mobile phones; base stations (as discussed)",
        "frequency_mhz": null,
        "sar_wkg": null,
        "duration": null
    },
    "population": "Insects (multiple species across included studies; examples mentioned include Drosophila)",
    "sample_size": null,
    "outcomes": [
        "Toxicity/adverse biological effects in insects",
        "Gene transcription changes",
        "Chromosomal abnormalities",
        "Laboratory vs field effects (ecological implications)"
    ],
    "main_findings": "This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes studies on electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure and insect outcomes, focusing particularly on power lines and cellular networks. The abstract states that non-thermal EMF effects on insects are clearly demonstrated in laboratory studies but only partly in field studies, leaving broader ecological implications uncertain. The excerpt reports that many included HF-EMF studies found statistically significant adverse effects at field strengths below common regulatory limits and argues this may warrant more stringent standards to consider wildlife protection.",
    "effect_direction": "harm",
    "limitations": [
        "Publication year, methods, and quantitative meta-analysis results are not provided in the abstract.",
        "Field evidence is described as only partial, and wider ecological implications are stated to be unknown.",
        "The abstract emphasizes extrapolation from laboratory findings, which may not directly translate to real-world ecological effects.",
        "Specific inclusion criteria, risk-of-bias assessment, and heterogeneity across insect species/exposure conditions are not described in the provided text."
    ],
    "evidence_strength": "high",
    "confidence": 0.66000000000000003108624468950438313186168670654296875,
    "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
    "stance": "concern",
    "stance_confidence": 0.85999999999999998667732370449812151491641998291015625,
    "summary": "This 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates studies on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and biological effects in insects, with emphasis on power lines and cellular networks. It reports that non-thermal EMF effects are clearly shown in laboratory studies but only partly supported by field studies, so ecological implications remain uncertain. The authors frame the evidence as indicating potential detrimental effects at exposure levels below current human-focused regulatory limits and call for more field research and stronger consideration of wildlife protection.",
    "key_points": [
        "The paper is a systematic review and meta-analysis of EMF-related toxicity/biological effects in insects.",
        "The review highlights power lines and cellular network infrastructure as key exposure sources of interest.",
        "The abstract states laboratory evidence for non-thermal EMF effects in insects is clear, while field evidence is only partial.",
        "The excerpt reports many HF-EMF studies found statistically significant adverse effects at field strengths below ICNIRP reference levels.",
        "Examples mentioned include reported effects in Drosophila near GSM phones and under WiFi exposure conditions.",
        "The authors argue current standards are designed for humans and may not be adequate for insects/wildlife.",
        "The paper calls for more field studies and suggests laboratory findings may warrant increased concern about environmental EMF impacts."
    ],
    "categories": [
        "Systematic Reviews & Meta-analyses",
        "Wildlife & Ecology",
        "Radiofrequency (RF)",
        "Environmental Exposure"
    ],
    "tags": [
        "Insects",
        "Systematic Review",
        "Meta-Analysis",
        "Radiofrequency EMF",
        "Non-Thermal Effects",
        "Laboratory Studies",
        "Field Studies",
        "Power Lines",
        "Cellular Networks",
        "WiFi",
        "GSM Mobile Phones",
        "Base Stations",
        "ICNIRP Limits",
        "Wildlife Protection",
        "Gene Expression"
    ],
    "keywords": [
        "insects",
        "electromagnetic fields",
        "EMF",
        "HF-EMF",
        "non-thermal",
        "systematic review",
        "meta-analysis",
        "power lines",
        "cellular network",
        "5G",
        "WiFi",
        "GSM"
    ],
    "suggested_hubs": [
        {
            "slug": "power-lines",
            "weight": 0.7800000000000000266453525910037569701671600341796875,
            "reason": "The review explicitly highlights power lines as a focus for insect-related EMF effects."
        },
        {
            "slug": "cell-phones",
            "weight": 0.7399999999999999911182158029987476766109466552734375,
            "reason": "Cellular networks and GSM mobile phones are discussed as key RF-EMF sources with reported insect effects."
        },
        {
            "slug": "wifi",
            "weight": 0.61999999999999999555910790149937383830547332763671875,
            "reason": "WiFi exposure is mentioned in relation to reported gene transcription and chromosomal effects in insects."
        },
        {
            "slug": "5g-policy",
            "weight": 0.460000000000000019984014443252817727625370025634765625,
            "reason": "The abstract discusses 5G deployment and notes lack of testing for potential toxic effects in this context."
        },
        {
            "slug": "who-icnirp",
            "weight": 0.5500000000000000444089209850062616169452667236328125,
            "reason": "The excerpt compares reported effect levels to ICNIRP limits and questions their adequacy for wildlife."
        }
    ],
    "social": {
        "tweet": "Systematic review/meta-analysis (Rev Environ Health, 2023) on EMF effects in insects reports clear non-thermal effects in lab studies but only partial evidence in field studies; authors argue many reported adverse effects occur below current human-focused regulatory limits and call for more field research.",
        "facebook": "A 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis in Rev Environ Health summarizes studies on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and insects. It reports clear non-thermal effects in laboratory studies but only partial support from field studies, leaving broader ecological implications uncertain. The authors compare reported effect levels with current guidelines and call for more field research and consideration of wildlife protection.",
        "linkedin": "Thill, Cammaerts & Balmori (Rev Environ Health, 2023) published a systematic review and meta-analysis on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and insect biology. The paper reports clear non-thermal effects in laboratory studies but only partial evidence in field settings, and discusses how reported effect levels compare with current human-focused exposure limits, highlighting the need for more field research and wildlife-relevant risk assessment."
    }
}

Comments

Log in to comment.

No comments yet.