The decision on Monday to introduce EU-wide restrictions on neonicotinoid insecticides linked to bee decline is 'likely to have catastrophic impacts for food production and unintended consequences for the environment', the National Farmers' Union have said.
The proposed restrictions would only affect certain uses of the pesticides on crops with flowers that are attractive to bees.
France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia have already banned the use of neonicitinoids and a large number of member states are expected to back restrictions at the relevant meeting on Monday in Brussels. In the absence of conclusive scientific evidence, Scottish Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead said he believed it was right that Europe seeks conclusive evidence before the ban is actually implemented.
Global agricultural company Bayer CropScience said the decision demonstrated 'a lack of belief that these proposals would result in improved bee health.'
"The company is concerned that the ban of these neonicotinoids is an attack on technology and innovation which would result in crop yield losses, reduced food quality and loss of competitiveness for European agriculture. Bayer CropScience predicts a negative impact on farmers, R&D driven ag companies, the seed industry and the food value chain" the company said.
"As there was no qualified majority in the Appeals Committee, Bayer calls upon the Commission to not implement its proposal on these products until a proper impact assessment has been done."
The Rural Affairs Secretary for Scotland, Richard Lochhead wrote to the UK government urging them to accept the restrictions on the use of neonicotinoids but not to implement them until further evidence is gathered. If the research proves the pesticide is not harmful to bees, the proposals should then be withdrawn.
Environmental charity Friends of the Earth said the insecticide was linked to bee decline and welcomed the recent decision to restrict its use.
However, the charity, warned that pesticides are not the only threat bees face, and renewed its call for the UK Government to urgently introduce a Bee Action Plan.
Friends of the Earth’s Head of Campaigns Andrew Pendleton said: “This decision is a significant victory for common sense and our beleagured bee populations.
"Restricting the use of these pesticides could be an historic milestone on the road to recovery for these crucial pollinators.
"But pesticides are just one of the threats bees face - if David Cameron is genuinely concerned about declining bee numbers he must urgently introduce a Bee Action Plan."
Commenting on the UK Government's failure to support restrictions on neonicotinoids, Andrew Pendleton said: "The UK Government's refusal to back restrictions on these chemicals, despite growing scientific concern about their impact, is yet another blow to its environmental credibility.
"Ministers must now help farmers to grow and protect crops, but without relying so heavily on chemicals – especially those linked to bee decline."
But the National Farmers' Union said: "It is right that we take steps to protect bees – they are vital pollinators, but, any action needs to be proportionate to the problem. Crucially, we have to be confident that when we make changes, these changes will actually deliver benefits. At the moment, there is no evidence to show that there are any harmful effects of neonicotinoids on bees under field conditions. If we cannot find evidence of harm in the field, then it follows that we will not be able to measure any benefits of a ban either.
“This issue is about science and evidence, and finding a balanced way to tackle the significant challenges to bee health. However, it looks like we are about to make populist changes that do nothing to measurably improve the situation for bees, but will make it harder and more costly for farmers and growers to control pests on a whole range of agricultural and horticultural crops."
Lochhead said the issue was highly sensitive. "It is, therefore disappointing that the results from the bumble bee field trials were inconclusive."
"When it comes to protecting our biodiversity and wildlife, there are times when taking a precautionary approach is perfectly justifiable. It is in the interests of our environment and our farmers that we have healthy bee populations but we know there are a wide range of factors affecting these valuable pollinators.
“However, given the lack of conclusive evidence I think it would be sensible to carry out a further programme of research over the next two years. If the results prove conclusively the pesticide does not harm bees, the proposals would be withdrawn. If not, the proposals would be implemented. A breathing space would allow any existing stocks to be used and also time to ensure that any alternatives on the market do not make matters worse.
“I do not think that year after year of debate over what the science tells us will get us very far or help our bee populations or farmers. That’s why I am suggesting a precautionary approach with a built in breathing space and exit strategy.
“I have therefore written to DEFRA ministers urging them to seek a two-year delay to implementation of the European Commission proposals to restrict the use of neonicotinoid pesticides while further evidence is gathered, and believe this approach offers more clarity than the current approach favoured by them.”
Research commissioned by the UK government, which was released in March this year, found no evidence of a link between neonicotinoid insecticide use and bee health.
During a debate in the House of Commons on 26 March, agriculture minister David Heath confirmed that the results of research into the field effects of neonicotinoid seed treatments on bumble bee colonies showed no relationship between colony growth and neonicotinoid residues in pollen or nectar in the colonies.
The research, conducted by the Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera), reinforces previous advice by Government scientists and the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides that the evidence available does not indicate harmful effects of neonicotinoid use on bees under field conditions.
And a second study published by Defra on 27 March, assessing the key evidence available on neonicotinoids and bees, found that laboratory based studies demonstrating sub-lethal effects on bees from neonicotinoids did not replicate realistic conditions.
Commenting on the new research, Crop Protection Association chief executive Nick von Westenholz said: "Both these studies underline the importance of taking extreme care when extrapolating the findings of laboratory studies to the field.
"This latest research confirms that a ban on the use of neonicotinoid seed treatments would be unlikely to improve bee health, whilst removing a key crop protection technology which is vital for economically and environmentally sustainable crop production in the UK and across Europe.
"I hope it will encourage those who have been calling for a ban on products such as these to take a step back and consider what measures are really needed to protect bee health, rather than simplistically blaming the nearest chemical."
NFU lead on bee health Dr Chris Hartfield said: "We need to be careful not to get drawn into a game of ‘research study top-trumps’. Defra’s latest research is one more study, with limitations and flaws like all other studies. However what it does show clearly is that we do not have an adequate understanding of the levels of exposure to neonicotinoids experienced by bees under field conditions. And without that fundamental understanding it is clear that we cannot quantify whether and how harmful the impacts are to bees under field conditions.
"The European Commission has decided to manage the risks identified by EFSA around neonicotinoids and bees by banning the use of these insecticides. The Defra study shows that this precautionary approach by the Commission is neither proportionate nor justified by the current evidence we have available.
"Everyone who works to improve bee health would like a silver bullet and a single target to aim it at. But the reality is that bees continue to face multiple challenges of pests and disease, the fragmentation, degradation and loss of habitats, changing climate, invasive species and chemicals they encounter in their environment. We do not have the evidence to point the finger of blame for widespread declines in pollinator populations at any single factor."
The UK, which abstained from the vote for suspension, will be guided by the views of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP), based on work just published by the Food and Environment Research Agency (FERA). Given that the ACP is generally known for judgements based on sound science, this gives some cause for optimism – that the UK will adopt a more positive stance.
"The other dataset which needs to be put into the equation is the impact of any such restriction," says Dr Colin Ruscoe, chairman, BCPC.
"Given the multiplicity of influences on bee health reported globally in recent years, suspension of use in itself would not provide scientific evidence on the effect of neonicotinoids. The fact that France has significantly restricted the use of these insecticidal seed treatments, with no concomitant improvement is not lost on beekeepers.
"Whereas loss of access to these products would clearly have extremely serious effects on agricultural productivity, given the absence of alternatives for control of many key pests of broad-acre crops, as well as fruit and vegetables, as demonstrated by an industry-led report on the subject."
"BCPC now calls for an EU Commission-sponsored, independent impact assessment of the ban, as well as further properly-designed field experimentation, upon which to base its decisions," says Dr Ruscoe.
