March 15, 2013

expert reaction to EU vote not to suspend use of neonicotinoids

A combination of abstentions and votes against a proposed two-year ban of neonicotinoids in the EU, a class of pesticides that some blame for falling bee populations, have caused the ban to fail.

Dr Lynn Dicks, Research Associate at the University of Cambridge and NERC Knowledge Exchange Fellow, said:

“We know that some wild insect species in the UK, such as certain moth, butterfly and ground beetle species, are declining in numbers dramatically.  At the same time, use of insecticides in agriculture is increasing in terms of total treated area of land.  It is really no surprise to find that insecticides kill insects.  They are designed to.  They are unlikely to be the sole cause of falling insect numbers and diversity, but they represent one of a set of multiple interacting threats that seems to be driving declines.

“If we care about maintaining healthy ecosystems in farmed landscapes, we should aim to reduce the impacts of insecticides by using them as sparingly and efficiently as possible, if at all.  This means managing commercial crops in a way that relies less on insecticides, and making the best use of natural pest control services provided by ecosystems.  This strategy has not been the focus of much publicly funded research so far, so there are probably many new developments to come.  To me, the neonicotinoids represent a step in the opposite direction.  They are usually applied as a seed treatment, which means they are used whether or not there is a pest problem.  It’s similar to the prophylactic use of antibiotics in livestock farming.

“The key question in responding to today’s EU vote not to suspend neonicotinoid use is: would this ban have been a step towards achieving long term reduction in insecticide use?  I think not.  The European Union is already taking steps towards that, by requiring plant protection products of concern to be monitored, with timetables and targets for reduction of their use.  This seems a better approach, more likely to help bees and other insects in the long term.”

Dr James Cresswell, Ecotoxicologist at the University of Exeter, said:

“While recent research based on artificial dosing shows that neonicotinoids can harm bees, uncertainty remains over the severity of environmentally realistic conditions.  That science has not yet produced unequivocal answers to questions about severity.  This has put policy makers in a difficult position and so they have reason to act cautiously.”

Prof David Goulson, Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Stirling, said:

“I am sorry to see that this vote has not been passed.  The panel of independent experts at EFSA spent 6 months studying all the evidence before concluding that current use of neonicotinoids posed an unacceptable risk to bees.  There is now a clear and consistent body of evidence showing that field-realistic exposure of bumblebees feeding on treated crops is likely to cause them significant harm.

“The EFSA and almost everybody else (apart from the manufacturers) agree that this class of pesticides were not adequately evaluated in the first place.  Yet politicians choose to ignore all of this.  Presumably their opinions were swayed by the spurious claims that restricting use of these insecticides will cause vast economic losses to farming; claims that are not backed up by evidence.”

Prof Lin Field, Head of Biological Chemistry and Crop Protection at Rothamsted Research, said:

“I am very pleased that a sound scientific risk approach has been taken in this deliberation.  In my view there is still is not enough clear evidence supporting a ban on neonicotinoids.  Of course they can kill bees, they are insecticides; but whether they actually do this, or whether sublethal effects occur and damage the colonies on any important scale, has not been proven.

“Indeed there are many other factors likely to affect bee colonies (e.g. the varroa mite, the bee viruses the mite spreads, the pesticides used to kill the varroa, climate effects, flower supplies) which need to be taken into consideration.

“So should we apply the ‘precautionary principle’ and ban neonicotinoids just in case?  Well, on the face of it that might be the best solution but it takes no account of the ‘risk’ of the ban on our ability to control insect pests and secure crop yields.  Securing and increasing crop yields for food security has been identified as a priority in Europe and this will require a crop protection strategy to avoid unnecessary loss of yields.

“At present, and for the immediate future, the control of insect pests (and the crop diseases they vector) will rely heavily on the use of chemical insecticides until we find reliable and effective alternatives.  That said, we should not ignore the potential implications of pesticide use on pollinators as the health, viability and resilience of managed and wild pollinators are essential to a delivering food security, farmer livelihood, ecosystem functioning and general well-being of the public.  

“We need a proper science-led risk assessment to understand the effects of pesticides (and their active ingredients) on bees, whilst considering the effects on other pollinators (both wild and managed), within the context of farming practice and the wider ecosystem.  This will help us balance the risks and benefits for crop protection, crop pollination, ecosystem function and our health appropriately.  More work is required to get these data.”