EU decision on neonicotinoid seed treatment ban: No end in sight
© FLPA/Rex Shutterstock Oilseed rape growers hoping for a swift conclusion to the current neonicotinoid seed treatment ban could be in for a disappointment, despite the two-year ban coming to an end next month.
When the regulation was introduced back in December 2013, it imposed a provisional two-year restriction on three seed treatment active ingredients – thiamethoxam, clothianidin and imidacloprid – on mass flowering crops, such as oilseed rape.
Given the original timescale, many in the industry mistakenly believe that the current situation comes to an end later this year, when a decision on their future use will be made.
Unfortunately, that is not necessarily the case. A closer look shows that the ban was open-ended, with no finish date, except for a commitment by the European Commission to undertake a review of any new evidence on the effects of the treatments on bees within that timeframe.
And that’s the phase that we are in now, confirms Chris Hartfield, the NFU’s chief adviser for horticulture and potatoes, who points out that European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) is already chewing over the new evidence that was submitted by the end of September deadline.
See also: Shocking contrast in neonic-treated and untreated oilseed rape
“Once they’ve done that, they will write a report outlining the direction that the evidence points to. Only then will the commission take action. Of course, it might not take them forward or change the current position. Time will tell.”
Did you know?
A report prepared by Newcastle University has revealed an estimated 240,000 litres of insecticide, mainly pyrethroid-based, was applied to last year’s oilseed rape crop to combat cabbage stem flea beetle.
At a national level, this means more than 1.1m hectares were sprayed against the pest, representing a 2.5-fold increase in the use of autumn insecticides.
Furthermore, an estimated 17% of growers suffered crop losses, with the area lost believed to be as much as 16,000ha, or 3% of plantings. Of this, 9,200ha were replanted and 6,600ha were written off.
As a result, the total cost – including chemicals, their application, replanting and crop losses – came to £22m.
Dr Hartfield adds that he hopes the Efsa conclusions will be with the commission by the end of 2015. “If the report does have a bearing, it’s important that any decisions are taken in time for the 2016-17 cropping year.”
New evidence
Some of the new evidence being considered by Efsa comes from the large-scale field trials on the use of clothianidin and thiamethoxam, which are being undertaken by the UK’s Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) at a cost of £2.5m.
Although the study is largely being funded by Syngenta and Bayer, which has attracted some criticism, it is of independent design and uses open methods of data collection and reporting.
As such, it is being overseen by an independent scientific advisory committee, chaired by Bill Sutherland of Cambridge University.
Lead scientist Richard Pywell explains that work to measure the impact of the field-scale use of neonicotinoids was required, in order to complete the evidence requirement.
“There is published evidence which suggests some negative impacts of neonicotinoids,” he says.
“A few of the laboratory studies have shown negative effects on wild pollinators, while field trials in Sweden on spring oilseed rape also showed harm to bumblebees and solitary bees, but not honeybees.”
Spring rapeseed, however, flowers later then the winter-sown crop and receives different pesticide inputs, he notes. “It also tends to be sown at a higher seed rate. So there were further questions raised by this study.”
More importantly, the previous field studies were done on a small scale, while the laboratory studies only provided some of the information required, says Prof Pywell.
“You have to remember that concern over the effects of neonicotinoids on bees is relatively recent, so much of the research used to support the ban was, by necessity, undertaken in laboratory conditions or at a small scale within very few fields.”
This is particularly relevant as bees often forage over very large distances of up to 4km, he says.
So there was a need for independent field trials in winter oilseed rape, which mirrors farm practice and reflects commercial realities, he stresses.
Seed treatment use this year
Emergency-use legislation means farms in just four English counties had access to neonicotinoid-treated rapeseed this autumn.
Seen as a flea beetle hotspot and judged to be the area hardest hit last year, the counties include Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, where as much as 90,000ha of the crop was grown last year.
However, the emergency use of treated seed allowed a maximum of 30,000ha of oilseed rape plantings to be protected – about 5% of total plantings.
Farmers who have used the products will be asked to take part in an AHDB monitoring scheme to measure the effect of the products on their crops, with further reporting expected once pest and damage levels have been assessed.
“That work on real-world exposure just had not been done. The lab studies gave us an early warning, along with what the mechanism could be, so a big-scale investigation was needed to provide the answers that farmers deserve.”
Major trial
The CEH experiment is the largest of its type and complements the laboratory and field trials done to date, he adds.
It is taking place in three EU countries – the UK, Germany and Hungary – across a total of 33 farms, all of which have significant oilseed rape crop areas. It involved the 2014-15 crop, so almost 90% of the data collection has already been completed and an interim data package has already been submitted to Efsa, in line with its end of September deadline.
Both treated and untreated oilseed rape, in blocks of between 45 and 70ha, were included – all of the same oilseed rape variety and with other pesticide inputs being controlled.
The crops were managed commercially, with treated and untreated blocks being separated by at least 4km.
“The monitoring done was to look at whether exposure to oilseed rape treated with neonicotinoids had effects on wild pollinator populations,” reveals Prof Pywell.
“It also included the measurement of any pesticide residues in nectar, pollen and hive products, as well as the reproductive success and overwinter survival of bees.”
While some data has already been handed over, his final report is not due until the end of March 2016. In the meantime, the Efsa is pulling in new evidence from everywhere, not just the UK, before its report is finalised.
Effects of neonicotinoids: What we know so far
There is plenty of contradictory evidence on the effects of neonicotinoids. While a Swedish study showed harmful effects on bees in spring oilseed rape, a large-scale field study conducted in Canada failed to find any adverse effects on bees.
However, a Harvard study links two of the neonicotinoids to bee deaths, especially in colder winters.
The Food and Environment Research Agency research, recently published in Nature, showed farmers who use neonicotinoid seed treatments subsequently use less insecticide on their oilseed rape crops.
But the study also demonstrated that more honeybee colonies were lost where the first-generation neonicotinoid, imidacloprid, was used.
According to Giles Budge, lead author of the study, honeybee colonies are lost due to a whole range of other pressures, including weather, pests and diseases, as well as regional factors.
“The drivers behind these losses are complex, which is why further evidence, particularly from large-scale field trials, is so important.”
Bee farmer’s perspective: Rebeckah and Ged Marshall, Buckinghamshire
Rebeckah Marshall (pictured right) and her father, Ged, have 300 honey-production hives – 15 at home in Steeple Claydon, Buckinghamshire, and the rest on other farms across the south of England.
Many are in Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire and Essex on oilseed rape crops, field beans, wildflowers and borage. And some are based on a fruit farm in Kent, pollinating apple, pear and plum trees.
On the subject of neonicotinoids and the reported risk they pose to bees, Mr Marshall says he does not believe that is the case.
In 35 years, he has not seen any link between neonicotinoid insecticide use on crops and bee health. He says his best-ever honey crop came from neonic-dressed oilseed rape and “those bees went into winter stronger than ever”.
“When local farmers approach the neonics subject, I say ‘I’m on your side’,” adds Mr Marshall, who worries that, without neonics, there will be fewer crops requiring pollination – and they will be able to produce less honey.
“The lab situations they test them in don’t reflect real life,” Ms Marshall says. “It’s like paracetamol: two tablets will cure your headache, a whole box will hurt you.”
