Although a crunch vote by agriculture ministers representing the EU's 27 Member States did not yield a 'qualified majority' on Monday, the EU Commission is now free to press ahead with its moratorium on neonicotinoid insecticides, backed by the 15 states that voted to introduce a partial ban first proposed in January.

image expired

Talks and voting in the Appeal Committeeended once more in a state of deadlock at the beginning of the week. However, the Commission announced its plans to press ahead with pesticide restrictions, as advised by risk assessors at EFSA who concluded in January that three neonicotinoids (clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiametoxam) pose an "unacceptable risk" to the EU's insect pollinators.

Tonio Borg, Health and Consumer Commissioner, said on Tuesday, "The decision now lies with the Commission. Since our proposal is based on a number of risks to bee health identified by the European Food Safety Authority, the Commission will go ahead with its text in the coming weeks." The Commissioner added, "I pledge to do my utmost to ensure that our bees, which are so vital to our ecosystem and contribute over €22 billion annually to European agriculture, are protected."

15 Member States supported the restriction, eight (including the UK) voted against and four States abstained during the appeal committee vote. This is an increase in support for the Commission from March, when 13 states supported the ban, nine were opposed and five abstained.

The new measures will restrict use of three neonicotinoids for two years, preventing seed treatment, soil application (granules) and some foliar treatment on "bee attractive" plants and cereals. However, foliar uses will be permitted in fields after flowering. Restrictions will apply from 1st December 2013, not July, as had initially been suggested by Borg.

The Commission said it would review this ruling "as soon as new information is available."

Industry scientists contest pesticide claims

At an industry conference being held in Oxford on Tuesday, Scientists from Syngenta, Bayer and government research body FERA maligned the Commission proposals and claimed that the EU executive's policy is based on flawed evidence.

Speakers presented studies which they claimed not to have published due to commercial confidentiality, though Syngenta speaker Mike Coulson did admit to encountering difficulties in releasing the company's research. He said of one paper, which showed no link between exposure to neonicotinoids and adverse effects on bees, "One of the reasons we're struggling to get this published is that publishers don't like studies where nothing happens." The studies were reviewed by EFSA during its assessment last year.

When pressed, scientists at the conference all suggested that loss of habitat, parasites and pathogens are playing the most significant role in bee decline. Professor Robert Paxton from Halle Wittenberg University said that evidence suggests a complex web of interconnected factors is affecting bees, potentially including pesticides, though he agreed with other speakers in stating that disease and habitat loss present the most serious threats.

However, though Defra secretary Owen Paterson has proven to be immovably sceptical of the evidence on neonicotinoids and bee health, and has backed the industry throughout voting and negotiations in Europe, some influential MPs have welcomed the Commission's restrictions. The Environmental Audit Committee, which assesses government policy based on its sustainability, ruled last month that Defra's stance over the neonicotinoid issue has been "extraordinarily complacent" following an inquiry into pesticides and pollinators.  

On Sunday, EAC chair and Stoke-on-Trent MP Joan Walley said that evidence points to a link between use of the named chemicals and adverse effects on bees, and that UK government calls to wait for unequivocal evidence of harm from neonicotinoids before acting are "inconsistent with the precautionary principle, which the government belatedly remembered that it had already signed up to in European treaties."

In Oxford on Thursday, Syngenta scientist Geoff Coates argued that, as a result of the two-year partial restrictions Europe would see reduced yields from crops usually treated with neonicotinoids. He said, "yields of oilseed rape have plateaued at 3.4 tonnes per hectare and pollination is a key thing to look at in improving yields. This ban could see yields roll back to 2t/ha and people will begin to turn their back on [OSR]." Bayer's Dr Julian Little added that this could lead to further problems for insect pollinators if farmers begin to turn away from flowering crops like oilseed rape.

However, there appears to be scant evidence to support these Malthusian claims; the national bee health network tasked with assessing the impacts of Italy's ban on neonicotinoid seed treatements in maize – introduced in 2008 – has found no evidence that the restrictions are causing problems for farmers and pointed instead to indications of healthier bee populations, suggesting that Europe need not fear the prophesied return to "museum agriculture" just yet.