Just one day after an industry report attempted to make the economic case for neonicotinoid insecticides in Europe, the bloc's health watchdog has announced that previous risk assessment strategies have been flawed and declared the chemicals pose an "unacceptable" threat to Europe's insect pollinators.

image expired

Authors of the Value of Neonicotinoid Seed Treatment study, released on Tuesday, claimed that the controversial group of pesticides are worth £630 million to the UK economy each year, and that their withdrawal would have disastrous effects for farmers. However, critics countered that even the £630m figure is dwarfed by the value of pollinators, including bees; research from last year revealed insect pollinators are worth £1.8 billion annually to farmers in the UK. They also pointed out that both France and Italy have banned neonicotinoids without suffering impacts to yields or income.

On Wednesday (16th January), scientists from the European Food Safety Authority delivered their findings following a review of the evidence on neonicotinoids, begun last April after studies published in March in the journal Science, which linked the controversial pesticides to serious effects on bees.

The EFSA scientists focused on the effects of three neonicotinoids; clothianidin, imidacloprid (both found in Bayer products) and thiamethoxam (in Syngenta's Cruiser). They looked at the chemicals' effects on bee colony survival and development, bee larvaes and bee behaviour. Last year, research published by researchers in the UK and France revealed the chemicals have a detrimental effect on bees even at low doses, and insect charity Buglife told a UK government inquiry committee that 30 peer-reviewed studies have established such a link since 2009.

EFSA Scientsists deliver findings

The scientists pointed to an Opinion published by the Authority in May 2012, which found potentially serious flaws in the EU's risk assessment methods in relation to pollinator health. Amongst other things, current risk assessment practice only looks at honeybee health, despite the fact that many other insect and animal pollinators are exposed to chemicals.

The authors proposed a much more comprehensive risk assessment for bees more scrutiny of the findings of field studies. However, the EFSA rapporteurs said that, due to the fact that better risk assessment practice is still being developed, some of their risk assessments could not be completed. They also identified significant data gaps, which hindered their evaluation and said information on pollinators other than bees was particularly sparse.

Scientists from EFSA and other experts from EU Member States, concluded that "A high risk [to honeybees] was indicated or could not be excluded" from use of all three chemicals. They said that, for all chemicals examined, the risk to bees from exposure to pollen and nectar of treated plants was high, and therefore "Only uses on crops not attractive to honey bees [are] considered acceptable"

They also found that, in line with US research outlining a risk from Exposure to dust produced during the sowing of treated seeds, most exposure in this way indicates a risk to honey bees, albeit with some exceptions. Although testing in this area proved challenging (The only risk assessment that could be completed was for maize treated with thiamethoxam), EFSA said "field studies show an acute effect on honey bees exposed to the substance through exposure to guttation fluid" (sap exuded by some plants).

EFSA said, "Given the importance of bees in the ecosystem and the food chain and given the multiple services they provide to humans, their protection is essential," but no formal recommendations have yet been made by the agency.

Reactions to review of neonicotinoid evidence

Reacting to the EFSA findings, a Bayer CropScience spokesperson stood by its assurances that the pesticides are safe, adding that the company has "generated extensive safety data for its neonicotinoid-containing crop protection products". Bayer believes the Varroa mite is chiefly responsible for pollinator decline.

The German agribusiness said in a statement, "It is very important that any political decision [made] following the publication of the EFSA reports, should be based on clear scientific evidence of adverse effects, under 'realistic conditions of use', and should not be made ad-hoc or on the basis of an over-interpretation of the precautionary principle."

However, responding to the industry study released on Tuesday, which was commissioned by Bayer and Syngenta, Pesticide Action Network policy officer Nick Mole questioned the report's validity. Pre-empting EFSA's pronouncements, he added, "The fact is we need a suspension [of neonicotinoids] while we look at what's going on. Until it can be proven that they are not having a detrimental impact on insects, they should be banned."

On Wednesday, Friends of the Earth spokesperson Andy Atkins echoed Mr Mole. He commented, "The clear link between neonicotinoid pesticides and declining bee health must sting the Government into action - we can't afford to dither when it comes to protecting these key pollinators. Ministers must urgently remove these dangerous chemicals from sale, overhaul inadequate pesticide safety tests and ensure farmers have access to safe, effective alternatives to enable them to produce food without harming our bees."

Atkins added that, according to Defra evidence supplied to the inquiry into the link between neonicotinoids and pollinator decline, the Government has funded valuable research into non-chemical alternatives for farmers to use, including on oil seed rape, but these are not yet widely available for use in the field. He called on Defra to draw up a National Pesticides Action Plan, outlining "how it will support farmers to reduce overall dependence on chemicals."

EFSA said guidance on more detailed risk assessments on the effects of crop protection products will be published in the Spring, along with further EU research on two bee parasites – the small hive beetle and Asian bee mite. Agribusinesses maintain that their products are safe and blame parasites, disease and loss of habitat for declines in Europe's insect pollinators.

Meanwhile, Joanne Walley, chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, which is investigating government inaction in the face of mounting evidence of harm caused by neonicotinoids said, "Recent studies suggest that commonly used pesticides could be causing those populations to decline. The European Food Safety Authority has now concluded that neonicotinoids should only be used on crops that are not attractive to honey bees. I welcome that move, but given that there is no new data here, it is extremely worrying that these pesticides were authorised for use in the European Union in the first place."

Walley added that she would be calling Bayer representatives back to present more information to the committee, after the discovery of discrepancies in the evidence supplied by the company. She said, "Our inquiry had already identified risks to bees that were not picked up in the EU assessment process for one of Europe's most widely used pesticides, despite field trial data showing it could linger in the environment at dangerous levels. This raises important questions about the whole European pesticides assessment regime, which the Environmental Audit Committee will now be looking into."