Researchers and corporate funders have clashed over the results of a major study on neonicotinoids which was published in the journal Science last month.

Emails obtained under Freedom of Information (FOI) rules by Greenpeace’s Energydesk blog show pesticide manufacturers Bayer and Syngenta repeatedly asked scientists to give them raw data on the study before it had been peer reviewed, and scientists have objected to the pesticide manufacturers’ accusations that they overstated their findings.

The groundbreaking research was published at the end of June, and the report’s authors concluded that the evidence pointed to neonics having negative effects on bees’ health. The research was hugely significant, because of its wide scope (with tests conducted across three countries) and the fact that it observed effects on bees the field, rather than in a laboratory setting. Neonic manufacturers have been highly critical of lab-based studies that have shown health impacts from their products.

There were discrepancies in the results, with bees suffering less noticeable effects in Germany, but faring much worse in the UK and Hungary. Independent scientists discussing the paper, including University of Sussex professor David Goulson, noted that analysis of residues of neonicotinoids in bee nests pointed to “widespread contamination of the environment.” Prof Goulson noted that the neonicotinoid imidacloprid was frequently detected in certain bee nests but wasn’t used on nearby farms in the year of the study.

Emails obtained by Greenpeace show that both of the researcher’s corporate backers cited their position as co-funders to try to obtain data from researchers at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH), who conducted the study. Although they kept data on wild bees, as this portion of the research had been publicly funded via the UK research council NERC, CEH did share data relating to honeybees, which the companies themselves funded. CEH made all data public after the study had been peer-reviewed and published.

The emails also show that the two companies tried to supply their own studies which showed no evidence of harm from neonics to researchers, and that as early as 2014 the CEH study’s corporate backers had attempted to restrict the scope of the research to focus entirely on honeybees, which they touted as a cost saving measure. At the time, MPs on the UK government's Environmental Audit Committee expressed concern about the pressure the companies were exerting on CEH, though representatives from the agribusinesses stressed the independence of the research in Committee sessions.

Bayer: No conspiracy theory

Both neonicotinoid manufacturers were highly critical of the study upon its release, disputing the CEH researchers’ conclusions and stating that they “Remain confident that neonicotinoids are safe when used and applied responsibly.”

Contacted for comment by Energydesk, Bayer spokesperson Julian Little said, “We’re quite frustrated about how these results have been portrayed. The reality seems to be a long way away from the headline.”

“As we funded the vast majority of the study, unsurprisingly we were keen on getting the information as soon as possible. Especially when there had already been significant delays in us being given that information.

“I’m not sure how that becomes a conspiracy theory. We asked for the information, they said they weren’t going to give it to us until they had all the information published. No doubt we said that doesn’t seem very fair, but they said that’s the way it was going to be so we said: ‘OK’.”

Syngenta, however, went further. Responding to Energy Desk, a Syngenta spokesperson seemed to suggest that CEH researchers had exaggerated their findings to spite the company, stating, “CEH appear to have responded to funding, interaction, and requests for data by drawing an even stronger negative conclusion regarding the impact of neonicotinoids on bees.”


Speaking to The Times on the study’s release, Syngenta spokesperson Peter Campbell suggested CEH researchers had overstated the impacts in order to get their study published in a prestigious journal.

CEH: Study has been a major headache

Last week, CEH’s Prof Richard Pywell said he would happily work with the chemical companies again to conduct independent research, though Bayer’s spokesperson was more reticent. This week, however, the CEH study’s lead author hit out at the companies’ attempts to torpedo the study they had partly backed.

Speaking to the Energydesk blog, Dr Ben Woodcock said, “From a personal perspective, I don’t really appreciate having them accuse me of being a liar. And accusing me of falsifying results by cherry-picking data. That’s not what we’ve done. I’ve got little to gain from this and it’s been a major headache. We just present the results we get.”

He continued, “I’m intrigued to know what they would’ve wanted us to do. If you find negative results on key metrics – number of bees in hives, number of bees surviving after winter – how would they want us to present that? How could we interpret this in what they see as an unbiased way?

“Science papers are short. There about 1,500 words. The discussion is tiny on this. It’s like a paragraph. So it’s not like we spent vast amounts of time discussing the details of this. You literally present the results more or less as they are, along with some broad statements on what you observed.”

Dr Woodcock took aim at the companies for highlighting the results from Germany, where health impacts were less pronounced. He said, “They’re trying to reduce the size of our experiment, by putting it into individual countries.  And when you do that you reduce the replication to such a level that it’s basically impossible to find a difference between an effect of neonics or no neonics.”

“Bayer and Syngenta said that if you look at each country individually, then you don’t get the effects you see in our study. If you do any experiment, you have to think about replication.

“Think about tossing a coin in the air: if you tossed a coin once in the air and you got heads, would you assume that you would get heads every time? No, you would do it again and again until you understand there is a 50:50 chance of the coin landing on heads. And every experiment is like that. The more times you replicate something, the more chance you have of understanding what’s going on.”

Bees are in decline across the Northern Hemisphere, and although there are thought to be a number of factors behind these declines, including habitat losses, disease pressures and climate change, the impacts of certain pesticides on already weakened populations is increasingly though to be playing a role in losses. Dr Woodcock said that the evidence from Germany suggests that work to improve the environment to make it more bee-friendly can improve bees’ chances, no only against neonicotinoids, but also in the face of climate change.

Offering a pragmatic response to the furore surrounding the neonicotinoid study, Dr Woodcock said,  “It’s easy to say ban neonics, but you’ve got to take into account what the alternatives are. Simply saying there’s no effect of neonicotinoids is not the way to go. There needs to be a sensible acknowledgment that there is a problem so we can work out a solution that best serves society and the natural environment.”

In 2013, the European Commission issued a temporary, partial ban on three neonicotinoids, preventing their use on flowering crops to minimise exposure to bees. In March, the Commission produced draft regulations outlining a ban on all outdoor uses of the pesticides. These will be subject to tripartite debates and voting from the EU’s legislative bodies.