Bumblebee on oilseed rape. Andy Hay (rspb-images.com)
Conflicting news about neonicotinoids this week. "Neonicotinoids: new warning on pesticide harm to bees" according to the Guardian, while Farmers Weekly reassures us "No sign of damage to honeybees from neonics, review shows."
The twist, of course, is that the two articles are reporting on the same thing: a summary of the research on neonics, commissioned by the UK government’s Chief Scientific Advisor and produced by a team of scientists led by Professor Charles Godfray.
This is an update of a report Prof Godfray’s team produced last year. A lot has happened in the intervening time and the review covers a lot of ground – levels of neonics measured in the environment, lab studies on pollinators, experiments conducted in the field. The authors also comment on the lack of a clear picture on how effective neonics actually are ("we believe few would doubt that in some circumstances they are highly effective and in other circumstances they do not justify the costs of their purchase"), while stressing that they have not specifically reviewed the evidence on this point.
So what does the review say? The scientists didn’t set out to draw a final conclusion or to make policy recommendations. This is a statement of the evidence, pure and simple. It’s very easy to selectively pull out quotes that support a particular position, but that would be missing the point.
To me, this is one of the key points made in the paper: "major gaps in our understanding remain, and different policy conclusions can be drawn depending on the weight one accords to important (but not definitive) science findings and the weightings given to the economic and other interests of different stakeholders."
The RSPB, as a conservation organisation, places a high weighting on the evidence of risk to biodiversity. There is very strong evidence that pollinators and other wildlife are being exposed to neonicotinoids at potentially harmful levels. Some particularly worrying research recently showed that even flowers around the edges of arable fields can be contaminated - a concern for any farmer doing his or her best to help pollinators. We are therefore calling for a complete halt on all uses of neonics and a clear plan for filling in the remaining gaps in our knowledge. Those placing a greater emphasis on short term economic interests advocate the continued use of neonics. Given the stakes – the future of our wildlife, ecosystems and ultimately our ability to produce food – I have to say I think the RSPB’s approach is the right one.
However, my advice to anyone with an interest in the subject is not to rely on anyone else’s interpretation, but to read Prof Godfray’s paper for yourself. It is available (for free) here.