The UK government should suspend the use of a number of pesticides linked to the deaths of bees, a committee of MPs has said. Members of the Commons Environmental Audit Committee are calling for a moratorium on the use of sprays containing neonicotinoids.
Britain has refused to back an EU ban on these chemicals saying their impact on bees is unclear. But MPs say this is an “extraordinarily complacent” approach.
Wild species such as honey bees are said by researchers to be responsible for pollinating around one-third of the world’s crop production.
In their report, MPs say that two-thirds of these species have suffered population declines in the UK.
They argue that a “growing body of peer-reviewed research” points the finger at a group of pesticides called neonicotinoids.
“We believe the weight of scientific evidence now warrants precautionary action,” said the committee’s chairwoman, Labour MP Joan Walley.
“So we are calling for a moratorium on pesticides linked to bee decline to be introduced by 1 January next year.”
Following on from research published in January by the European Food Safety Authority that suggested these chemicals posed an “unacceptable” threat to bees, the European Commission proposed that neonicotinoid sprays be restricted to crops not attractive to pollinators.
There are already some restrictions in place in France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia. But the idea of a two-year ban did not attract enough support after the UK and Germany both abstained.
Joan Walley says the UK government’s approach to the issue is “extraordinarily complacent”.
“If farmers had to pollinate fruit and vegetables without the help of insects it would costs hundreds of millions of pounds and we would all be stung by rising food prices,” she added.
But the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) says that a ban is not justified at present.
Defra’s chief scientist Dr Ian Boyd admitted the research was “very finely balanced”.
“Neonicotinoids will kill bees, let me be absolutely clear about that. It is what numbers do they kill and whether it affects populations – the question is whether banning them in any way would be proportional and at the moment the balance of evidence suggests it wouldn’t be,” he said.
There have been a number of studies showing that the chemicals, made by Bayer and Syngenta, do have negative impacts on both honey and bumblebees.
One study suggested that neonicotinoids affected the abilities of hives to produce queen bees. More recent research indicated that the pesticides damaged their brains.
But Defra argues that these studies were mainly conducted in the laboratory and do not accurately reflect field conditions.
It has published its own work showing that in the field, these chemicals had little effect on bee health, although Defra acknowledges the study lacks statistical power.
They are also calling on the European Commission to agree to a major new field study that would settle the debate.
“That will allow informed decision-making, rather than rushing into a knee-jerk ban based on inconclusive studies,” said a Defra spokesman.
Dr Ian Boyd says that despite being used for 20 years, there has been no satisfactory answer to the key question: what effect are these chemicals having on pollinators in the field?
Given the finely balanced state of the science he says that other factors such as the costs to farmers have to be considered in the decision to keep using these pesticides.
“It is a very difficult analysis to do, we really don’t have full data – but it does suggest that the cost-benefit trade-off at the moment is weighted to retaining neonicotinoids because if you just cost this in financial terms then you move in the direction of having a significant financial cost to take them out of the system,” he said.
But the Commons Environmental Audit Commission rejects this approach, saying that “economic considerations should not form part of environmental risk management decision-making”.
The committee also asks for more openness from the chemical manufacturers who should publish their own research on the safety of these products.
This seems to be one thing on which Defra and the committee agree.
“I personally believe that all those data should be open access; I think that everyone should be able to see them,” said Dr Boyd.
“There are issues around confidentiality but I don’t think any of those are insurmountable,” he added.
Pesticide manufacturer Bayer said it “strongly disagrees” with the idea of a two-year moratorium.
With fellow producer, Syngenta, it has produced its own action plan on how to protect bee health.
“There has been a long history of the safe use of neonicotinoid insecticides and it is clear that when they are used responsibly and properly, any impact on bees is negligible,” said Utz Klages of Bayer.
“This has already been confirmed by the competent EU and member-state authorities in their market authorisation assessments, based on the extensive safety data that had previously been submitted and proven in many monitoring studies.”
The committee of MPs says the government’s lack of action is in marked contrast to the efforts of the UK’s largest garden chains.
B&Q, Wickes and Homebase have withdrawn non-professional plant protection products that contain neonicotinoid chemicals.
The report has been welcomed by many campaigners including the charity Buglife, which praised the “robust stance”.
The issue is unlikely to disappear anytime soon. The European Commission told the BBC that it would continue to press forward with plans for a moratorium.
A spokesman said they were planning to appeal against the recently rejected ban.
In the US, the Environmental Protection Agency is being sued by beekeepers and environmental groups over its “failure” to protect pollinators from neonicotinoids.
This article was written by Matt McGrath Environment correspondent, BBC News
Share on social media:
You may also like:
Top-Viewed Posts Last 30 Days
- POLL: Should foxes be culled to protect domestic pets? [3598 Views]
- 10 amazing birds that have gone extinct [1172 Views]
- POLL: Should Japan be sanctioned for continuing to slaughter whales? [1160 Views]
- POLL: Should the trade in both raw and antique ivory be banned? [1071 Views]
- POLL: Should India’s export of tiger skin, parts and bones be stopped? [1068 Views]
- Gray Squirrels versus Red Squirrels – The Facts [980 Views]
- POLL: Should the use of exotic animal skins for fashion be banned? [945 Views]
- POLL: Should wildlife crime be enforced by tougher legislation? [756 Views]
- POLL: Should the grey squirrel be culled to protect red squirrels? [734 Views]
- POLL: Should the Eurasian Lynx be rewilded? [732 Views]
Top-Viewed Posts Last 12 Months
- White Killer Whale Adult Spotted for First Time in Wild [42025 Views]
- POLL: Should there be a worldwide ban on fur farms? [16753 Views]
- POLL: Should the annual Canadian seal hunt be banned? [13871 Views]
- POLL: Should fur farming be banned in the European Union? [13808 Views]
- POLL: Should Congress disband Wildlife “Killing” Services? [11112 Views]
- Gray Squirrels versus Red Squirrels – The Facts [10793 Views]
- POLL: Should driven grouse-shooting be banned? [8596 Views]
- POLL: Should grouse shooting on highland estates be banned? [8303 Views]
- POLL: Should black bears be killed for Royal Guards’ fur caps? [8037 Views]
- POLL: Should China’s dog meat festival be banned? [7392 Views]