Bees’ plight takes flight

It is said to be 70,000 times more toxic than DDT to bees, with a coating on each seed to kill 200,000. Europe correspondent Ann Cahill reports on the EU ban on neonicotinoid pesticide

FAMINES have been caused by locusts, drought, blight, and a range of other problems down through the ages. But now about one third of our food is threatened by knocking out just one little link in the food chain: Bees.

While most take their usefulness for granted, if they know about it at all, in industrial farming regions their role is well understood. In the US, for instance, whole firms specialise in rearing and maintaining bee colonies and transporting them to farms, renting out their services for days or weeks at a time.

Those very same industrial farming regions are experiencing something of an emergency, with up to 70% of bee colonies mysteriously dying or just disappearing. There were barely enough bees to pollinate for California’s famous almond harvest — the state’s biggest food export.

The situation has become so dire that many parts of the US must now import bees from other countries, such as Australia, which so far is one of the few areas to all but escape the phenomenon.

However, the US and its industrial farms are not the only place to be affected. For years, farmers have bussed from Spain, in particular, to Brussels, to stand and chant outside EU agriculture meetings, holding empty honey jars, sporting striped black and yellow jumpsuits and waving flags.

Finally, just over a year ago, their message got through, greatly helped by new evidence from French and British scientists, which pointed the finger at a class of pesticide introduced about 20 years ago. The European Commission and EU states asked the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to investigate.

The cause is complex, according to experts, and may be a result of a number of factors, including disease and mites, as well as pest-control products. In this case, the EU complaints specifically centred around three pesticides (neonicotinoids) that were relatively modern and use a variant of nicotine — as is found in cigarettes — to kill off pests that threaten crops such as wheat, soy, rapeseed and maize. It’s main target is the western rootworm.

The pesticide is used in various ways, including to coat each seed ahead of planting and as a spray on foliage. It is very effective: Once in contact with the plant, it spreads throughout it during growth and remains poisonous to insects and animals. It also stays in the soil for about three years, affecting subsequent crops.

“It is highly toxic and even at one part per billion it will still affect bees,” says Marco Contiero, who has been at the helm of the Greenpeace campaign against the pesticide. It is 70,000 times more toxic to bees than DDT, and he says there is sufficient coating on each maize seed to kill 200,000 bees.

When initially registered, they were seen as being a much safer alternative to the then pesticides, including DDT, especially for humans.

Italy, Germany, and Slovenia banned their use on a temporary basis, specifically targeting three: Thiamethoxam, manufactured by the Swiss company Syngenta, and Imidacloprid and Clothianidin, both manufactured by Bayer of Germany.

These pesticides are seen as a preventative, so even if there may be no pest in sight, farmers are urged to use it as a precaution, to make sure their crops come to no harm.

However, the EU’s legislation in relation to chemicals, generally, places the health of the consumer first and says that if there is any doubt or if it cannot be proven that a substance is safe, then it should not be used.

This is regularly under attack from business, which argues if their tests and science say it is safe, then it should be accepted as such.

The EFSA report was based on studies already undertaken by the scientific community, which found more than 30 separate sources claiming a link between the demise of the bee population and the neonicotinoid pesticides. They classified the risk as “acute”.

EFSA, regularly under attack for being too close to industry, suggested that a two-year moratorium would give more time for research, suggesting they were not fully convinced. A case in the US against the Environmental Protection Agency for registering some neonicotinoids may also have convinced it to err on the side of caution.

Normally, the catch cry is to abide by the science but, in this case, the question arises: Whose science? As frequently happens when there is no such thing as complete certainty, or when the extent of knowledge or ignorance is unknown, it comes down to lobbying, with each side trying to convince as many in power as possible of the right of their case.

So, once it became apparent late last year that the EFSA was not completely convinced by anyone’s science, one of the biggest and most aggressive lobbying campaigns seen in Brussels for some time was launched by the companies concerned, and others linked to industry concerned with genetically-modified crops and by their umbrella organisation, the European Crop Protection Association. Letters that illustrate the level of power the industry is accustomed to exerting were published by the transparency group, Corporate Europe Observatory. These were sent by the agri-chemical companies, defending their position.

One of the letters, from Syngenta, was sent to Ireland’s commissioner Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, EU agriculture commissioner Dacian Ciolos, and to all the ministers for agriculture, saying their products do not damage bees, and that they are victims of a “small number of vocal individuals and groups”, that have “skilfully leveraged media reporting of alarmist studies”.

They claim that without their product there would be €17bn worth of damage to agriculture over the next five years and productivity would drop by 40%, putting many growers out of business, pushing up the cost of food and feed and forcing seed producers to relocate outside Europe.

Another letter from Syngenta was sent to EFSA’s head of media relations, complaining about the draft press release they had seen before its publication, saying details were inaccurate and giving them a deadline to confirm it would be changed, or they would consider their legal options. It advised EFSA to “seriously consider its responsibility and liability for an inaccurate statement which would have a significant business impact”. When it was released, largely unchanged, the company demanded internal documents surrounding it, including handwritten notes of meetings and it threatened the head of media relations, personally, according to letters published by Corporate Europe Observatory.

The European Crop Protection Association, in a press release, said tests showed that when used correctly, neonicotinoids had no effect on bee populations and the two-year partial ban was a misuse of the precautionary principle.

The procedure for banning or restricting or allowing a product onto the EU market is straightforward when there are no issues, but becomes something of a circus when there are. Initially, the decision rests with the experts from the member states, known as the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, who meet to decide on it. The same rules apply to them as apply to the ministers when they meet on the same topic: You need a qualified majority of member states representing a majority of citizens. You can have a blocking minority and, as in the case of the bees and the pesticides, it then goes into something of a tailspin.

After a second attempt to reach a decision, with a new compromise from the European Commission, once it becomes obvious they could not get the numbers to agree a deal one way or the other, it reverted to the commission. This is frequently a neat way out of politically difficult decisions for member states.

The bee issue has been controversial from the beginning, with countries objecting to getting independent analysis into bee mortality and pesticides last year.

Many of the same countries objected to taking the EFSA advice for a two-year ban in March, with Ireland voting against, while Britain and Germany abstained.

“I assume they were protecting industry; and, of course, the big farming lobby, Copa-Cogeca, of which Ireland is a significant supporter, favoured the pesticides also,” said one EU source.

Britain voted against, while Germany for and Ireland abstained.

Germany, the home of Bayer, the manufacturer of two of the pesticides, had already restricted its use and voted for the ban. France, which sees itself very much as an agricultural country, had pushed for the ban all along, supported by Spain and the Netherlands. However, Italy, which has also imposed restrictions, voted with industry, as did Portugal.

The neonicotinoid products are also under huge pressure in the US, where the EPA is reviewing how they are used. There, they are used on the vast majority of crops, including fruit and vegetables. The US Geological Survey reports they are turning up in the water of rivers and lakes now, while other research shows residues in food.