Insect charity Buglife last week contested claims made on television by farming minister David Heath over the effects of neonicotinoid pesticides.

image expired

On Friday (19th July), the charity, which campaigned in support of a ban on three neonicotinoid pesticides, criticised Heath over assertions made on ITV's Tonight programme the previous evening. The pesticides in question were eventually made subject to a partial ban by the European Commission in May, following a series of deadlocked talks between the EU's member states, in which UK delegates opposed restrictions.

Speaking on the programme, Heath said, "There's abundant evidence that this is a substance which is toxic in the laboratory…What we have not been able to demonstrate yet is any linkage between that and what you see in field conditions where you have much lower dosages than were applied in the laboratory tests."

Buglife said the Government's own scientific advisory group contradicts this position; the Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP) said in January this year, "The laboratory and semi-laboratory studies reported in the literature represent sound science. The main questions raised were about whether the nature of the exposure was realistic, and information to date suggests the exposures were reasonable." The papers Heath was seeking to undermine were published in prestigious journal Science and their findings were subsequently supported by EU health watchdog EFSA.

The farming minister and the UK government would not back restrictions on neonicotinoid pesticides earlier this year because, they claim, there is not enough evidence conducted in the field that demonstrates a direct link between the chemicals and effects on bee health.

Ill-fated Defra experiment reveals problems of neonicotinoid field studies

However, Defra's own researchers discovered the difficulty of conducting field experiments given the ubiquity of neonicotinoids; a government-commissioned study, which was conducted to support the government's stance on neonicotinoids, was contaminated by the presence of a neonicotinoid (thiamethoxam) not being tested in the investigation, and even bees in control colonies were exposed to the pesticides.

The study, conducted by agency FERA, was not subject to peer review and was simply released onto the internet. It was panned by reviewers at EFSA, and the .pdf report on the Defra website now carries a qualifying document. Defra's stance was pilloried as an abandonment of the precautionary principle, which governs the science and legislation on environmental protection. The principle dictates that "Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."

Government ministers have come under fire numerous times this year alone over their failure to uphold this key principle, which features prominently in European law. In the case of the neonicotinoid debate, environmentalists said the UK government position directly contradicted the principle.

On Thursday, the farming minister blamed the flaws in the Fera study on it being rushed through because of action taken by the European Commission; "Because we were doing it against a deadline set, not by any scientific research, not by any idea of do we find out the actual facts about this, but by a politically imposed timetable, which I’m afraid I think was quite wrong." Buglife accused Heath of "Discounting the conclusions of over a hundred studies by independent scientists which show that neonicotinoids are an environmental risk" dating back several years.  

Finally, the Defra minister alleged, "The risk is [that] by banning neonicotinoids you actually encourage farmers to use other, perhaps slightly outdated technologies in terms of insecticides, pesticides which could be far worse for the bees." The charity said there is no scientific basis for this assertion; despite claims from pesticide manufacturers that the partial ban will have huge economic and environmental consequences for Europe, evidence from Italy and France, where regulators pre-empted the EU restrictions, show no adverse effects for farmers, yields or insects.

The charity said it would be pursuing the government "to clarify which insecticides it is referring to and to set out the evidence that indicates that they are more damaging to the environment than neonicotinoids."

Matt Shardlow, Buglife CEO, said on Friday, "There have been profound concerns about the impact of neonicotinoids on wild bees, moths, hoverflies and aquatic life since 2009. Successive governments did not take the science seriously and appeared complacent. Now that the high risk that has been scientifically proven and a partial EU wide ban put in place the unwillingness of the UK Government to take regulatory action or to investigate impacts on soil and river ecology appears to go considerably further than complacency."