Integrated Pest Management
Pesticides News 95
Neonicotinoid restrictions present a unique opportunity to introduce safer agro-ecological approaches to pest management PAN UK’s Nick Mole, Stephanie Williamson, Paul Lievens and Keith Tyrell discuss issues around this controversial EU legislation and the debate on links between pesticides and pollinator declines. The Pesticide Action Network UK (PAN UK) welcomes the recent decision by the European Commission (EC) to place a temporary suspension on some uses of the three neonicotinoid pesticides, imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and clothianidin. We believe that the steps taken by the Commission are a measured and reasonable response to the conclusions on the unacceptable risks posed to wild pollinators as identified in the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reports on these actives (EFSA, 2013). The new measures introduced in April by the EC, following much discussion and debate, mean that these three actives can no longer be used as seed treatments on any flowering crop that is attractive to bees. This is for a provisional period of two years starting in December 2013, to allow Member States to assess the impact, positive or negative, this will have on bee populations. PAN UK recognises that neonicotinoids, and indeed other pesticides, are not the only threats facing wild pollinators. Other pressures, including access to forage, disease and parasites, have all been implicated in the alarming declines in pollinator populations witnessed in recent years. Nevertheless, the European restrictions provide a small window of opportunity in which it should be possible, given the correct
Oilseed rape is one of the largest users of neonicotinoid seed treatments in the UK
incentives and support from a range of stakeholders, to adopt more holistic agro-ecological approaches to pest management in the crops that are affected by the temporary restrictions.
Misleading information and scaremongering about neonicotinoid restrictions What PAN UK found most alarming in the debate about neonicotinoids was the opposition to the measures from certain quarters, including the UK Government, the National Farmers Union and, unsurprisingly, the pesticide manufacturers. Even more alarming were the misleading and often inaccurate statements broadcast in opposition to the proposed restrictions. It is worth highlighting here the report published by the Humboldt Forum for Food and Agriculture titled “The value of Neonicotinoid seed treatment in the European Union” (HFFA, 2013).This report was used to argue that the loss of neonicotinoids would impose devastating loss of productivity and income due to reduced yields and increased pest problems. It was promoted as an unassailable piece of independent research by those opposed to the ban. It is worth pointing out that the report was com-
Photo: Graham White
Autumn 2013
missioned and paid for by Bayer and Syngenta, neonicotinoid manufacturers, and that the Humboldt Forum is itself supported by Bayer Cropscience and BASF. The report claimed that the value of neonicotinoid use far outweighed any potential harm that their use could do, and used some very misleading ‘facts’ to back up this claim. Of particular concern was the use of an unrealistic baseline for the Humboldt study: • calculations did not take into account existing national bans; • calculations assumed that neonicotinoids would be replaced by other chemicals rather than turning to readily available and well tried non-chemical alternatives; • calculations did not take into account the implementation of the of EU plant health policy and the EU Sustainable Use Directive; and • calculations did not take into account externalities such as side effects of neonicotinoid use on beneficial insects, ecosystems, water pollution and other factors
The need to return to the ecological principles of IPM One of the main arguments put forward in the Humboldt report is that ending the use of neonicotinoid seed treatments would result in reduced yields. However, there is good evidence to show that this is not the case. In Italy, where a ban on the use of seed treatments for maize was instigated at the end of 2008 in response to increasing bee mortality rates, there appears to have been no yield loss whatsoever. The effect of the ban has been monitored by APENET, a monitoring project funded by the Italian Ministry of Agriculture, and has shown that the ban has reduced the number of bee mortalities. It has also studied yields in maize and has stated that ‘the yield of maize was not affected by the ban’ (Christensen, 2011). What APENET also managed to show was that levels of pest and disease in maize did not increase in any meaningful manner following the ban (Youris, 2013). More information can be found in PAN UK’s factsheet no. 5 ‘Can restrictions on systemic insecticides help restore bee health?’ (PAN UK, 2012) which contains references to the APENET studies. Another argument in opposition to the ban was that farmers and growers would resort to using older chemistries, such as pyrethroids, to replace neonicotinoids. Again the Italian experience is illuminating. Rather than reverting to older pesticides, farmers varied crop rotations to deal with pest problems. Looking at the results reported by APENET, this seems to have been an effective, free and simple strategy. This simple rotation strategy has also been explored as a means of controlling Diabrotica virgifera in maize, a pest for which pesticide manufacturers aggressively market neonicotinoids. Can the same principle be applied in the UK, most notably on Oilseed Rape (OSR) but also on other crops that use neonicotinoid seed treatments? PAN UK recognises that OSR in the UK and maize in Italy are two
9