Many of you will have noticed a number of stories on honeybees and pesticides in the national press in the last month. The focus of most of the stories has been to expose evidence apparently linking a particular group of pesticides – the neonicotinoids – to the widespread decline in bee populations experienced across the globe in recent years. This coverage culminated last week in a discussion of this issue by MPs and Defra Minister Jim Paice in a Westminster Hall debate raised by Gower MP Martin Caton.
When you strip away the emotion, sensationalism and conspiracy theories surrounding this story about the impact of neonicotinoids on honeybees, you are left with the fact there is a pile of scientific studies suggesting causes for concern, and there is a pile of scientific studies saying there is no cause for concern. There is no clear weight of evidence linking any pesticides to the decline in bees.
Much of the recent press coverage has centred on the work of US researcher Jeff Pettis, which has basically showed (not unexpectedly) that if you weaken a bee by exposing it to an insecticide, the levels of pathogens in its gut increase. The Independent broke this story, in more ways than one, in a front page ‘Poisoned Spring’ exclusive revealing Jeff Pettis’ ‘…explosive finding that is still unpublished after two years’. The article drew heavily on this work to show how this ‘new’ kind of pesticide, widely used in the UK, may be helping to kill off the world’s bees. The Independent article also mentioned that Martin Caton had tabled a parliamentary Early Day Motion (these are like MP’s version of graffiti – allowing them to express a view, which may or may not be noticed by others) calling on the Government to ban the use of neonicotinoid insecticides. During his Westminster Hall debate, the Independent article was held up by MP Martin Caton like some piece of evidence.
The following day, after some kind of weird ill-informed positive feedback process, the Independent covered the Westminster Hall debate and used the fact that MP’s had discussed the issue as almost yet more evidence to link pesticides to bee deaths.
Among the parts of the MP’s debate reported by the Independent, it was really interesting to see that they didn’t mention Defra Minister Jim Paice’s comments about what researcher Jeff Pettis had blogged on the Independent’s website in response to the original ‘Poisoned Spring’ article. Jeff Pettis had said that the implication his findings were somehow being suppressed were totally unfounded; that his findings were not unexpected; that it is not possible to make a direct comparison with a lab study and what might occur in the field; and that his findings do not provide a direct link between pesticides and bee colony losses.
Many reading those newspaper articles will probably end up taking a ‘no smoke without fire’ view on this issue – largely due to the way the issue is reported in the press. The journalistic obsession with balance doesn’t really work with science - where findings have to be replicated again and again to eventually work out where the weight of evidence lies.
What this pesticides and bees issue fundamentally boils down to is whether or not you follow the precautionary principle. If you agree with the precautionary principle, then you work on the basis of hazard, and selected evidence (rather than a significant weight of evidence) is enough for you to start to call for action – such as banning the use of neonicotinoids. At the NFU however, we work on the basis of risk, and on the basis of what we know for sure. And what we know is that the evidence is simply not there to link pesticides with the decline of honey bees.
NFU lead on bee health Dr Chris Hartfield adds: "One thing never mentioned by those calling for precautionary bans on the use of neonicotinoid insecticides is what would happen if they were banned. Neonicotinoids are used by farmers and growers because they are the best products available. They replace less effective older chemicals, which are generally more persistent and more toxic to bees and other beneficials. They control pests resistant to the older chemicals and can be used as part of resistance management strategies. Neonicotinoids are effective seed treatments, negating the need for more hazardous and frequent spray applications. And selective neonicotinoids are increasingly used in IPM strategies.
"The NFU believes that a ban on the use of neonicotinoids wouldn’t have any demonstrable beneficial effects on honey bee heath in the UK. Indeed, because of the nature of the alternatives to the neonicotinoid insecticides, such action is likely to have a detrimental impact on honey bee health. Meanwhile such a ban in the UK would severely impact on the ability to effectively manage pest insects on numerous horticultural and agricultural crops, at a time when as an industry we are striving to produce more food while impacting less."
No comments have been made.