Dave Goulson, a biologist and bumblebee specialist, writing in NewScientist (15 August 2015, paywall) reports on some preliminary results of an European Union (EU) moratorium on neonicotinoid pesticides in the UK and, to a lesser extent, across the EU:
Crops sown in spring 2014, mainly sunflower and maize, were the first not to have the pesticides applied. Across the EU, their yields were higher than the five-year average, in some regions more than 25 per cent higher. …
Debate in the UK has focused on oilseed rape. Here it is mainly autumn-sown, so the first neonicotinoid-free crop wasn’t in the ground until August 2014, and is being harvested now. … it was down 5 per cent overall.
The original European Commission decision is reported here; a BBC report on that decision in 2013 is here. Goulson also notes how Big Ag participated in the debate over instituting the moratorium:
The UK was in the minority of countries voting against. Perhaps the government was swayed by glossy reports funded by the agrochemical industry, declaring that the ban would slash crop yields and cause huge job losses.
One such document states that if the moratorium went ahead, in five years the European Union could lose at least €17 billion, 50,000 jobs could go, and “more than a million people engaged in arable production… would certainly suffer”. …
Debate in the UK has focused on oilseed rape. Here it is mainly autumn-sown, so the first neonicotinoid-free crop wasn’t in the ground until August 2014, and is being harvested now. However, the UK’s National Farmers Union (NFU), which opposes the ban, pointed to Sweden and said that up to 70 per cent of spring-sown oilseed there had been wiped out by pests. As it turned out, it was down 5 per cent overall.
The NFU also highlighted claims that on some UK farms up to half of the autumn crop was being lost to flea beetles. Recent figures show that overall 3.5 per cent of the sown area was lost. But remember that some crops are lost every year, even with neonicotinoids.
So Big Ag may turn out to be guilty of hyperbole. But is this the end of the story? Rebecca Randall, a journalist at The Genome Literacy Project reported in January of 2015:
Yet, as activists continue to campaign to get neonics banned, news from Europe, where a two-year moratorium went into effect last year, suggests that farmers are unable to control pests without them. Partly in desperation, they are replacing neonics with pesticides that are older, less effective and demonstrably more harmful to humans and social insects, and farm yields are dropping.
The European Commission banned the use of neonics despite the fact that the science community is sharply split as to whether neonics plays a significant role in bee deaths. The causes of CCD and subsequent winter-related problems have since remained a mystery—and a heated controversy. …
But there is no bee crisis, say most mainstream entomologists. Globally, beehive counts have increased by 45 percent in the last 50 years, according to a United Nations report. Neonics are widely used in Australia were there have been no mass bee deaths, and in Western Canada, where bees are thriving. Over the past past two winters, bee losses have moderated considerably throughout Europe and beehives have gone up steadily over the past two decades as the use of neonics has risen.
While many environmental activists, and some scientists, have coalesced around the belief that neonics as a likely culprit, most mainstream entomologists disagreed. May Berenbaum, the renowned University of Illinois entomologist and chairwoman of a major National Academy of Sciences study on the loss of pollinators, has said that she is “extremely dubious” that banning neonics, as many greens are demanding, would have any positive effect.
That article is from January, which may mean it’s been superseded by Goulson’s. However, there are two issues here: first, is discontinuation of the use of neonicotinoids causing devastation of crops, and, second, are bee colonies recovering? The second point remains not only unaddressed by Goulson, but may not need addressing in this way.
But The Guardian published this article on Goulson’s research:
A study on which the UK government bases its position that neonicotinoid pesticides do not threaten bees may actually be the first conclusive evidence that they do, according to a leading bee scientist.
Dave Goulson, a professor of biology at the University of Sussex, reanalysed a 2013 study on the effect of the world’s most heavily used pesticides on bumblebees by the UK’s Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera).
Fera’s scientists said that bee hives “remained viable and productive in the presence of the neonicotinoid pesticides under these field conditions”. Yet, Goulson said the experiment found that all hives where clothianidin, a common neonicotinoid, was present had reduced numbers of queen bees.
Goulson said: “The conclusions they come to seem to be completely contrary to their own results section.”
“They find that 100% of the time there is a negative relationship between how much pesticides were found in the nest and how well the nest performed, and they go on to conclude that the study shows that there isn’t a significant effect of pesticides on bee colonies. It doesn’t add up.”
The study was never published in a peer-reviewed journal and has been rejected by the EU’s safety authority. Yet the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) cites it on their website as a foundation for its support of the pesticides.
It’s extremely disturbing that the UK is basing a position on an important, scientifically-connected matter on a research paper that has not been published, despite time to do so, and appears to have anomalies – although the authors are not given room for rebuttal in this newspaper article. However, The Guardian continues:
The lead author on the Fera report left the agency just months after its publication to work for Syngenta – a major producer of neonicotinoids. This lead to suggestions that the government was too close to the pesticide industry.
Gathering this data has its own collection of pitfalls, namely derogations (the partial revocation of a law). EurActiv.com provides an interview from 2014 with Martin Dermine, a bee activist, on the problems of data gathering:
In 2013, the Commission banned some neonicotinoids because of their suspected harmful effect on bees. One year on, how is this ban working?
The partial ban on neonicotinoids and fipronil was a fantastic victory for the environment, even though we would have liked to see a full ban on these bee-harmful chemicals. From the information we have, the ban is properly applied by member states. Unfortunately, several member states, such as Finland, Romania, Germany, Latvia and Estonia have provided derogations to their farmers to keep using neonicotinoids on certain major crops. This annihilates the benefit of the ban for bees.
What kinds of derogations did the ban leave for the pesticide industry?
Member states provide 120 days derogations for forbidden pesticides on a regular basis, in response to a request from farmers, or the pesticides industry.
European pesticide regulation clearly states that derogations can be given where no alternative exist, but member states do not actually respect this principle. For instance, in 2014, Romania provided a derogation for the use of thiamethoxam on maize, whereas Italy has banned its use since 2008, and has shown that it did not reduce yields. Furthermore, non-toxic alternatives exist on the market.
Adjusting for changes in conditions must be quite difficult for the scientists.
Giving Dave Goulson the final word on a recent UK action from the NewScientist article:
In highlighting losses, the NFU [National Farmers Union] was attempting to garner support for an application to allow UK farmers to ignore the ban. This has now been approved for a limited part of southern England, despite a 400,000-signature petition opposing it. So why was it approved? Getting an answer is hard. The NFU’s case is being kept secret on the grounds that it is “commercially sensitive”.
That means we cannot see why environment secretary Liz Truss decided some farmers could again use chemicals that the European Food Safety Authority says “pose an unacceptable risk to bees”.
The Conservatives are currently in power in the UK, and while they bear scant resemblance to the United States’ GOP, this action does make them appear to be unduly influenced by Big Ag – and the farmers who may not properly value pollinators. Not that we’d necessarily all die if the bumblebees became a non-factor, but food prices would certainly go up – and perhaps obesity would drop? Or would we just eat more of the bad food?
Oh, and the title of Goulson’s article? “Sowing Confusion”. Yeah, I’m confused, too.
