Defra has rejected an emergency application for growers to use banned neonicotinoid seed treatments on oilseed rape this autumn

Advice to Ministers:
Emergency Auhorisation of ‘Cruiser OSR’ and ‘Modesto’ as a seed treatment on oilseed rape. 

The UK Expert Committee on Pesticides (ECP) considers that: 

As emergency authorisations are to be granted in ‘special circumstances’ or ‘exceptional cases’, it is appropriate to subject ‘repeat’ applications to a thorough assessment in those cases where the Committee has sought specific supporting information or data, or where there is a substantial change in the scale or other nature of the application relative to the original. The requirements for emergency authorisation mean that an authorisation can only be granted if the product has benefits which cannot be achieved by other means.

• A range of factors (both predictable and unpredictable) determine whether the use of seed treated with these products is appropriate. It may be possible to justify a case for the use of these products on resistance management grounds, but it would be difficult to define an area based on the information provided. 

• The applicants had not made sufficient opportunity of the emergency authorisations granted in 2015 to generate more robust information to enable better targeting of use. In particular, it was noted that the assessments accompanying the application did not appear to have been subjected to any statistical analysis to enable estimates of the likely magnitudes of effects beyond chance. This made it difficult to assess the robustness of these data, particularly in terms of the different categories of damage, and be assured that use of any emergency authorisation would be appropriately ‘limited’. Information (in this application and more widely) on the relationship between pest pressure and economic loss was also lacking, an uncertainty currently unaddressed. 

• The proposed product stewardship arrangements offered insufficient assurance that use of any emergency authorisation would be appropriately ‘controlled’. In particular, it was noted that the proposed arrangements:

• were not as robust as those used in 2015 for tracking treated seed through the supply chain;

• did not appear to include a mechanism for prioritising agronomists’ recommendations which would likely result in product being allocated on a ‘first-come/first-served’ basis (rather than to areas of greatest need);

• The criteria that agronomists would apply in deciding need were not well defined and could vary widely in practice. They would be challenging to define given scientific uncertainties that were unresolved by the data supplied. 

• Use of integrated controls may result in reduced reliance on seeds treated with these products in the medium to longer term, but did not offer a solution to the immediate case for need. 

The applicants also provided details of initial findings of studies undertaken following the granting of the 2015 emergency authorisations on the impact on adult and larval numbers and crop establishment/damage. They also provided an update on the incidence of pyrethroid resistance in CSFB populations in 2016. Information is not yet available on effects on crop yields from the 2015 autumn drilled oilseed rape.

Committee advice 

• The Committee, therefore, advises that whilst it recognises the potential for damage to crops by CSFB the applications do not meet the criteria for an emergency authorisation, as: 

• there is insufficient information to ensure that use will be limited only to those areas where there is a danger or threat to plant protection; and 
• the stewardship arrangements proposed by the applicant do not offer adequate assurance that the use will be controlled in an appropriate fashion. 

UK Expert Committee on Pesticides May 2016 

• Evidence demonstrates that the lack of access to seed treated with these products has resulted in an increased use of pyrethroid products. 

• In survey data presented by the applicants, there was only a weak relationship between regional crop infestation by CSFB and regional patterns of crop damage and loss. Also, in survey data presented by the applicants, relatively few fields assessed for damage from CSFB in any region reached guidance thresholds for treatment, with no important differences between crops sown with treated and untreated seed. This suggests a lack of predictability regarding the targeting of treatments and their likely impact under field conditions, when using damage assessments alone to define an area for treatment. 

• The weight of evidence suggests that targeted use of these products may improve the probability of successfully establishing a crop, but the mobile nature of CSFB populations, and influence that local agronomic and environmental factors at time of drilling have on risk of damage (independent of CSFB populations), make it difficult to reliably predict the value of treatments in any particular location. 

• The current AHDB thresholds relate to treatment of damaged crops with foliar sprays. There are presently no reliable methods available to predict which crops will be at greatest risk from CSFB attack prior to sowing the seed. 

• The applicants had provided insufficient evidence to enable the ECP to determine an appropriate scale of use and where or how this should be targeted. 

• The product stewardship arrangements proposed to control distribution of treated seed in 2016 differed from those used in 2015 (with growers providing returns directly to Bayer and Syngenta, rather than (as previously) growers providing returns to distributors, who then supply returns to the companies). 

• The decision as to whether to sow seed treated with these products would rest with agronomists. Agronomists would only be able to participate in the arrangements if they had undertaken the on-line training module on CSFB control. No details had been provided on the content of this training and it had yet to be approved by BASIS. 

• Both the applicant and Friends of the Earth had submitted interesting and useful information on how various IPM methods can be used to mitigate CSFB damage.