An international panel of scientists has this week published an independent review of the evidence around neonicotinoids and insect pollinators, and called for the debate around this issue to be evidence-driven.
The ‘restatement’ of the scientific evidence on neonicotinoids published on Wednesday comes from a group of nine scientists led by Professor Charles Godfray and Professor Angela McLean of the Oxford Martin School at Oxford University. It clarifies all the scientific evidence available to date on neonicotinoids.
In discussing the consequences of neonicotinoid use, the restatement makes clear that while declines in the populations of many insect species in general and pollinators in particular have been observed, the declines in bees predate by some decades the introduction of neonicotinoid insecticides, and that there is also some evidence of a recent slowing or even reversal in the rate of decline for some pollinator groups. It goes on to say that habitat alteration (especially in farmland) is widely considered to be the most important factor responsible, and that the evidence available does not allow us to say whether neonicotinoid use has had any effect on these trends since their introduction.
Professor Charles Godfray, Director of the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food, said: “Pollinators are clearly exposed to neonicotinoid insecticides, but seldom to lethal doses, and we need a better understanding of the consequences of realistic sub-lethal doses to the insect individual, bee colony and pollinator population.”
In reaction to this study, Professor Ian Boyd, Chief Scientific Advisor at Defra, said: “It is essential that policies on the use of pesticides are built on sound scientific evidence. This paper provides an independent assessment of this subject, which will provide clarity and authority in order to help people make more informed choices."
NFU lead on bee health and pollinator issues Dr Chris Hartfield, commented: “The last sentence of the restatement makes the situation very clear – while significant research is being currently undertaken to try and better understand how using or not using neonicotinoids affects pollinator colonies and populations ‘…there is at present a limited evidence base to guide policy-makers’.
“And the fact is this limited evidence base relies heavily on experiments where bees are artificially exposed to neonicotinoids. The critical issue is whether this experimental exposure is representative of what pollinators are likely to experience in real-life situations. The restatement makes it clear that most studies have used artificial doses at the high end of those expected in the field. Thisis then further compounded by the factexposed bees also receive the doses in an artificial environment that affects their behaviour and further questions how representative the results are of normal field situations.
“I think the restatement can be viewed as re-affirming that the NFU and the UK Government were right last year not to support the EU restrictions on the use of neonicotinoids, on the basis that this policy action cannot bejustified by the available evidence.”
It is unsuprising that while studies that report the harmful effects of artificially-dosing bees continue to make the national press, thisindependent restatement of the evidence around neonicotinoids and pollinators – which simply presents a comprehensive review of the available evidence, and no real opportunity for sensational doom and gloom headlines – has so far failed to get anycoverage in the national press.