In defence of bees:
a pesticide ban is justified
The health of
pollinators is crucial to the global food supply
FT View
A Great British Bee
Count run by Friends of the Earth, the green campaign group, recorded
sightings of more than 370,000 bees this summer. Yet this impressive
tally says more about public enthusiasm for spotting species such as
the common carder and the buff-tailed bumble bee than it does about
the health of the native bee population. There has long been concern
about the decline of wild bees and the increasingly frequent
collapses of commercial colonies — observed across Europe but
especially acute in the US. The role that certain pesticides might
have played, however, is a matter of fierce controversy among
environmentalists, farmers and industry lobbyists.
By signing up you
confirm that you have read and agree to the terms and conditions,
cookie policy and privacy policy.
Now new research
concludes that neonicotinoids — a group of pesticides chemically
similar to the nicotine in tobacco — might have cut the presence of
wild bees in the British countryside by up to 30 per cent since they
became widely used on oilseed rape crops.
The research, based
on volunteer sightings over 18 years, is important because it covers
more species over a longer period than previous studies, many of
which were carried out in labs. It suggests neonicotinoids caused bee
species that forage on the bright yellow fields of oilseed rape to
become 10 per cent less widespread on average.
This is a strong
corrective to the arguments put forward by agrichemical companies
such as Bayer and Syngenta, who have only grudgingly and gradually
accepted there is any evidence of their products having a harmful
effect. They contend that other factors, such as weather, parasites
and habitat loss are more significant.
The latest research
findings might not be conclusive, but they build on a growing body of
evidence that is too strong for policymakers to ignore. The health of
bees is not just a popular campaigning issue for environmental
non-governmental organisations and wildlife enthusiasts. It is also
crucial to the global food supply. Although most staple crops are not
affected, more than three-quarters of the world’s food crops —
including fruit, vegetables, coffee and chocolate — rely at least
in part on natural pollination. A 2009 study estimated that
pollination supported 9.5 per cent of the value of world agricultural
production for human food.
There are no
restrictions as yet in the US but the EU has taken action, imposing a
two-year moratorium on the use of three pesticides, which it will
review by the start of 2017. The latest evidence suggests that if
anything, they should consider tightening the rules.
Policymakers should
certainly treat the arguments put forward by pesticide manufacturers
— whose tactics are compared by NGOs to those used in the past by
tobacco companies — with scepticism. Farmers’ concerns about crop
yields are more understandable, but recent UK analysis suggests
neonicotinoids do not boost their profits on average. There are other
ways to manage pests that deserve attention.
In Britain,
ministers originally opposed the EU ban and granted growers of
rapeseed oil a partial exemption in 2015. They rejected a similar
request this year. However, the debate will now take place in the
context of a much broader policy shake-up. Brexit will leave the UK
free to set its own environmental standards. It will also force the
government to decide what form any future support to farmers should
take.
In recent years, a
large part of EU subsidies has been used to pay farmers for
conservation work. A big question is whether Theresa May’s
government will attach similar importance to environmental measures,
especially those that have forceful interest groups opposing them.
The position it takes on neonicotinoids could be an early test.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário