In my first blog of 2015 (here) I wrote about how we can learn from bees to make better decisions. One of the lessons was to be prepared to adapt when the information changes. Today, I want to continue the theme and offer an example of how the RSPB has adapted its policy on neonicotinoid insecticides based on fresh evidence about their impacts on wildlife.
There has been a phenomenal number of research papers published on neonicotinoids over recent years. Many revealed adverse effects of neonicotinoids on particular species, some found no effects, but out of this cloud of data emerged a clear message that using neonicotinoids may carry unforeseen risks.
The response of the scientific community was to set up a Task Force to carry out a systemic review of all this research. Their aim was to provide a synthesis so that policy makers could make decisions based on the weight of evidence rather than on individual papers.
The Task Force (which included the RSPB’s Chief Scientist, David Gibbons) completed their work this year and published their findings as a series of peer-reviewed papers. The conclusions are alarming. Here are some of the ‘highlights’...
...only 1.6% - 20% of the active chemical in a neonicotinoid seed coating is actually absorbed by the crop. The rest ends up in soil, water and vegetation where it may affect wildlife, including earthworms and other creatures beneficial to farming.
In the light of these findings, the RSPB’s position on neonicotinoids has been revised by our Council. We are now calling for the EU moratorium on neonicotinoids to be expanded to cover all agricultural uses (not just flowering crops). The European Commission should publish a clear plan stating how evidence will be gathered to guide a decision on if or how neonicotinoids may be used in the future. The moratorium should be continued for as long as it takes to gather this evidence.
You can read our full position statement on our website.
We realise this is a big ask, not least for the farmers who have been using neonicotinoids in the belief that they are safe for wildlife. There are alternatives to neonicotinoids – not just other pesticides, but techniques like crop rotation, careful choice of crop and variety, changing the timing of farming operations to disrupt pest life cycles, and so on. All of these methods have costs attached and may require farmers to make significant changes to their farming systems, which of course brings challenges and financial risk. But when the alternative is to continue using a chemical which may be contributing to declines in pollinators, earthworms, predatory beetles and other wildlife vital for a healthy countryside, we believe that change, however difficult, is necessary.
The situation has not been helped by the various misconceptions (not to say misinformation) that are circulating about neonicotinoids. Our friends at the Bee Coalition have debunked some of these in a ‘Myths and Truths’ document which is well worth a read.
I am off to Brussels this week but several of my colleagues are heading to Oxford to attend both the Oxford Farming Conference and the Oxford Real Farming Conference. These two events approach the challenges facing farming from very different angles but I believe they each have a valuable contribution to make, and I have no doubt that neonicotinoids and other pesticides will feature in the conversations taking place.
Farming profitably in harmony with nature remains the goal.
The RSPB is therefore calling on government and all sections of the farming and agri-chemicals industry to work with farmers to switch to effective, more wildlife-friendly approaches to pest control. Meanwhile, a lot more research and monitoring needs to happen to establish whether neonicotinoids should form any part of the future pest control toolkit or need to be banned once and for all.
What do you think about the RSPB's policy on neonicotinoid pesticides.
It would be great to hear your views.
Martin
This is still the 'daddy' of papers on neonics - just scroll through to the references rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/.../20140558
The big issue is the sub-lethal effects of these deadly efficient chemicals designed to kill invertebrates that impact on food crops. There is no doubt that pollinators and other non-target insects are caught in the 'cross fire' but diluting effects of more, much more, non-treated habitat can provide some help.
The precautionary principle is fine but don't forget to look over the horizon at foodbank queues, climate change increasing virus carrying pests, access to affordable food, insecticides that will replace neonicotinoids, practical costs of Integrated Pest Management and then perhaps start joint funding with Syngenta for seeking some realistic solutions.
Fresh from OFC and ORFC, yours aye
www.robyorke.co.uk
Having lived through the 'Silent Spring' I think our approach to environmental chemicals should be very cautious. Giving the chemical manufacturers the benefit of the doubt risks too many unforeseen consequences for species already under other pressures like habitat-loss.
I think Martin, the RSPB's revised position is entirely right. To what extent neonicotinoids persist in the environment would be a useful measure and I assume this has been investigated. However when this pesticide with its likely very damaging effects, is added to an already alarming cocktail of other pesticides, including antibiotics, that are present in the environment there is no telling what the effects may be. This cocktail effect is important as you rightly point out. For example we are starting to read alarming reports of the effects of small levels of pollutants in water courses and the devastating effects these can have on fish and aquatic life.
The RSPBs revised position is sensible and reasonable. We need to get used to the idea that.we may need to pay a bit more for our food to avoid using these nasty pesticides BUT against this cost we must not forget that with the price of oil tumbling, and farmers use a lot of fuel, extra costs in one area are often off set by lower costs in others.
redkite