Category: United Kingdom

Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

December 21, 2024

Experts commented on the Government’s plans to completely ban neonicotinoids. 

Dr Philip Donkersley, Senior Researcher in Ecology and Evolution at Lancaster University, said:

Is this evidence-based?

“The hazards posed by neonicotinoid pesticides to pollinators have been established by a number of high impact research articles for nearly a decade. There is no question that restricting their use can have significant benefits to both domesticated and wild pollinators.”

How significant a change is this to the rules we have currently?

“There are no significant changes to current policy, which will be of benefit to farmers, giving them at least the entirety of 2025 to change their pest management plans accordingly is a good thing for farmers. Current policy in the UK to allow neonic use under specific conditions has arguably failed, given that the conditions have been consistently met since the policy was adopted (i.e. It was entirely legislative, not functional). Going forward, a policy of absolute moratorium brings us closer in line with European standards.”

Why are neonics still used, and what will farmers need to use instead? 

“Neonics are used because of their ease of application, high efficacy and availability from suppliers. Some farmers may argue a moratorium will drive them to using more hazardous pesticides, like the pyrethroids, however with proper government guidance, a policy basis and direct financial support, a drive towards regenerative agricultural methods, combined with natural enemy protections and integrated pest management practices will be as good, if not better for the farm finances, productivity, and environmental sustainability. We know this works from both European and global farming communities – massively reducing pesticide use brings back natural enemies like spiders, parasitoid wasps, lacewings etc, which in turn kill off pest species.”

What will be the effect on pollinators and crops? 

“With any restriction of pesticide use, there will be a lag period, where the environment on the farm needs to recover, the farm productivity will be damaged due to sudden increases in pest abundance. However, over the long term, we see a gradual increase in pollinator health and farm finances. Governments should direct support farms during this period in order to safely permit them and their business to make the transition towards a more regenerative farming practice.”

Prof Giles Budge, Modelling Evidence and Policy Research Group, Newcastle University, said:

“I would welcome any legislation that protects our managed and unmanaged pollinator communities. However, as a society we must always consider the costs and benefits of any policy change. Sometimes new policies that are well meaning may have unintended consequences to the sustainability of our food production system, as well as our insect communities. Oilseed rape is a great example. Seed-coated neonicotinoids were banned from use on oilseed rape without time to formulate a clear plan for what alternatives might be available to manage both aphid and cabbage stem flea beetle pests.

“The story has positive and negative outcomes. First, the abruptness of the ban led to disruptive innovation in the industry, and seed companies were quick to produce cultivated varieties of oilseed rape which are resistant to turnip yellows virus, the main reason for controlling the aphid. However, many farmers switched to using multiple pyrethroid sprays to save their oilseed rape crops from damage by cabbage stem flea beetles. Pyrethroid sprays were ineffective against cabbage stem flea beetles, which were resistant, but highly effective against non-target insects. Crops were lost and the planted area of oilseed rape has dropped. Fewer planted oilseed rape crops has removed an important source of pollen and nectar for our pollinators, and challenged the farming community to find alternative crops and ways of working.

“The outcome for food production is that we have moved from a net surplus of oilseed rape production, where we exported, to a need to import oilseed rape into the UK in order to meet our needs. Our food security has been compromised, and the irony is that some oilseed rape imports are grown in countries where the use of neonicotinoid seat coatings has continued! A policy that sought to protect our pollinators has seemingly moved the problem abroad, impacted our farming community, and decreased our food security.

“I reiterate that I would welcome any legislation that protects our managed and unmanaged pollinator communities, but we need to ensure our farmers can continue to grow our food in a sustainable way. We need to take ownership of any issues with the sustainability of our food production, but we also need to ensure that our farmers have access to viable and sustainable solutions.”

Prof Linda Field, Emeritus Fellow, Protecting Crops and the Environment, Rothamsted Research, said:

“On the face of it, this would seem to be a measure that will help bees and other pollinators that can potentially be affected by neonicotinoids. However, this effect may be small given that bees do not forage in sugar beet crops, where the previous emergency authorisation has been applied.

“It should also be borne on mind that if neonicotinoids are not used in sugar beet in the UK, then the aphid that carries virus disease in this crop can’t be controlled, as it is resistant to alternative insecticides. This is very likely to result in reduced production of beet sugar and the need for more imports of cane sugar.

“The impacts of pesticide and pesticide stewardship requires broad farm-system landscape assessment. A single intervention is inevitably linked to many other factors that ultimately dictate any net gain or loss on biodiversity.”

Prof Dave Goulson, Professor of Biology (Evolution, Behaviour and Environment), University of Sussex, said:

“It is refreshing to see that the new government is sticking by its commitment to end all use of “bee killing pesticides”, by which it means the three neonicotinoids imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and clothianidin.

“These chemicals have been banned from agricultural use in all the EU and the UK since 2018. Until 2023 Europe allowed “emergency authorizations” in special circumstances, but these are now illegal in Europe. However, for the last four years the previous UK government granted emergency authorisation for the use of thiamethoxam on sugar beet. In doing so they ignored the science and went against the clear advice of the Health & Safety Executive and Expert Committee on Pesticides.

“Farmer across Europe grow sugar beet successfully without neonics. Only the UK has been allowing them, becoming the dirty man of Europe. Let’s hope this is finally coming to an end.

“By way of background, neonics are highly potent neurotoxins, lethal to bees and all other insects at miniscule doses. They are often used as seed dressing, but only about 5% of the chemical is absorbed by the crop. The rest pollutes the soil and soil water. Neonics are highly persistent, so soils remain contaminated for years. Neonics leach from soil into streams, harming aquatic life. They are also sucked up from the soil by hedgerow wildflowers and farm trees, contaminating all parts of the plant including pollen and nectar, and hence poisoning pollinators. This is why the EU introduced a ban on neonics in 2018, after prolonged evaluation of all the evidence by EFSA.

“Let’s not forget that sugar is very bad for us (diabetes, obesity etc.). We have been poisoning our soils, streams and bees to grow a product that makes us ill. Healthy crops could be grown on the land used for sugar beet. Government could extend sugar taxes to reduce our consumption.”

Dr Katie Powell, Butterfly Conservation Postdoctoral Researcher and British Ecological Society English Policy Group committee member, said:

Is this evidence-based?

“Yes. There is ample evidence that neonicotinoids have devastating lethal and sub-lethal effects on wildlife, both directly and indirectly through being passed through the food chain. Although the current method of applying neonicotinoids for emergency use is through seed-coatings, which is supposedly directed at target species (namely aphids), ‘beneficial’ insects feed on these target species and so non-target organisms – like ladybirds and hoverflies – are inadvertently exposed to neonicotinoids. Insects feeding on the pest species that are targeted by neonicotinoids include some pollinating insects such as hoverflies. Also, flowering plants grown near to neonicotinoid coated seeds, or subsequently grown in soil used to grow sugar beet where seeds have been treated, can carry through the pesticide to pollinators like bees at a later stage. This can then have population-level consequences and contribute to their decline. As well as this, leaching and accumulation of neonicotinoids from treated seeds into soils and waterways occurs, impacting the development of soil organisms and aquatic wildlife.”

What will farmers need to use instead?

“The worry is that farmers will turn to the use of boom spraying using other approved pesticides; this should not be what farmers turn to as an alternative, as this may be equally damaging to insects and other wildlife when applied in a non-targeted way. Approaches like Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and the development of genetic approaches to pest resistance and virus forecasting need to be further developed to replace widespread pesticide use. The government should plough research into these approaches to support farmers after the ban.”

What will be the effect on pollinators?

“The ban should have a positive effect on pollinators in the long-term, as well as benefits for lots of other insects like pest-controlling ladybirds and parasitic wasps which will have a chance to recover from the toxic effects of neonicotinoids. These beneficial insects naturally keep the pests that neonicotinoids aim to control in check through predating on them. Some of these beneficial predator species are also pollinators. Insect (and pollinator) declines are caused by a range of interacting factors, made worse by unsustainable use of pesticides. To bolster against population crashes and build resilience in populations against other drivers like extreme weather events, it is crucial to remove as many drivers of decline as possible and for habitat to be improved in order to support species of insect, including bees, butterflies and moths.  As populations start to recover from low levels due to their living conditions being improved, there is a greater chance they will be robust against other drivers like climate change.”

Declared interests

Giles Budge: “I declare no personal interest.”

Katie Powell: “I am involved in a campaign with Butterfly Conservation on this topic.”

For all other experts, no reply to our request for DOIs was received.