A new study (attached), sponsored by Bayer CropScience, Syngenta, the European Seed Association, the European Crop Protection Association, and the European Farmers and European Agri-Cooperatives, has said that a ban on neonicotinoid seed treatments would cost the EU economy up to €4.5 billion a year, put 50 000 jobs at risk and threaten sustainable food production. The report by the Humboldt Forum for Food and Agriculture (HFFA) purports to be the first comprehensive review of the socio-economic and environmental contribution of neonicotinoid seed treatment.
Following the publication of the report detailing the huge economic and social implications of banning the seed treatment DEFRA is seeking a better understanding of the ‘wider environmental, economic and human health consequences of possible restrictions’, so any action it takes limits any negative knock-on effects.
The UK farming and agricultural supply industries have welcomed the report by the Humboldt Forum for Food and Agriculture, which estimated that banning neonicotinoids could cut yields of some crops by up to 20 per cent and could cost the UK economy £630 million a year.
NFU lead on bee health Dr Chris Hartfield said the work was ‘important’, particularly in light of the expected publication later this week of the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) review of neonicotinoid seed treatments, including their impact on bee populations.
“Any decision to change the way pesticides are used to control crop pests will have an impact on both the protection of insect pollinators and the protection of crops.
“It is essential that we fully understand all these impacts before taking any action. Otherwise there is a significant risk we could make changes that do nothing to improve bee health, or even worsen the bee health situation, while also compromising the effectiveness of what this socio-economic report clearly shows is very important way of protecting our crops from pests.”
Paul Rooke of the Agricultural Industries Confederation, said: “At a time of increasing world commodity market volatility, any additional upward price pressures will impact on overall food inflation whilst at the same time negatively impacting on the UK farmers’ ability to produce crops to the highest economic and environmental standards.”
Chris Baldwin, managing director of United Oilseeds, said a ban would result in lower yields and revenue losses for the oilseed rape sector meaning UK crushers and processors, who currently source from UK providers exclusively, may be forced to import crops from abroad.
“Using neonicotinoids as a seed coating is the most effective way to apply insecticide to crops and target specific threats. The alternative means having to spray post-emergent crops with insecticide in the field. As well as being less effective, this method is less targeted and means higher input costs for farmers,” he said.
Crop Protection Association director of policy Anne Buckenham said: “This report serves as an important reminder that any knee-jerk action to ban certain insecticidal treatments would have disastrous consequences for crop production in the UK and across Europe, with serious implications for food prices and availability at a time of mounting concern over global food security and market volatility.”
While the crop protection industry ‘recognises the critical importance of bees as a pollinator’, she said a ban on the use of neonicotinoid seed treatments would be ‘unlikely to improve bee health’.
Extensive scientific and field-based evidence points to the Varroa mite and parasitic diseases, combined with the problems associated with habitat loss, colony stress and climate change, as the key factors implicated in declining bee populations, she added.
But Soil Association policy director Peter Melchett said the report indicated that banning the chemicals was a price worth paying in the UK.
He compared the estimated £630m additional costs to farmers of removing the chemicals to the estimated £1.8bn cost to farmers of replacing natural pollination of UK crops through bees and other insects with the alternative of hand pollination.
He pointed out that the report was funded by agri-chemical companies Bayer Crop Sciences and Syngenta and was therefore ‘unlikely to conclude that neonicotinoids should be banned’.
The Soil Association’s Keep Britain Buzzing campaign is calling for neonicotinoids to be banned in the UK.
Sources:
Agra Net, 15 January 2013
http://www.agra-net.com/portal2/home.jsp?template=newsarticle&artid=200…
The Farmers Guardian, 15 January 2013
http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/arable/defra-no-evidence-yet-that-n…
- Login om te reageren
Graham White comments
I love it when Anne Buckenham says:
"“This report serves as an important reminder that any knee-jerk action to ban certain insecticidal treatments would have disastrous consequences "
Knee jerk reaction???
When Bayer's 'Gaucho' was introduced as a seed dressing for Sunflowers in France in 1994 - beekeepers lost a MILLION hives in the next two years. They knew almost immediately that the cause was Bayer's 'Gaucho' (Imidacloprid) because - when they put the hives in the sunflowers, the hives died. If they put the hives in chestnut forests - they flourished. if the sunflowers bloomed early - the bees died early - if they bloomed later - the bees died later. The French govt convened the highest level of scientific Inquiry which the French State mandates; it considered 243 peer reviewed technical papers - and the conclusion of the Minister of Agriculture was to BAN neonicotinoids on sunflowers, oilseed rape and other bee crops in AD2000. The ban has never been rescinded. And guess what? French farmers have not collapsed, or gone bankrupt - they found other ways to minimise insect damage, liek crop rotation, or pesticides applied AFTER a crop was attacked.
The lies from DEFRA, the NFU and the bee establishment (in the pay of Bayer and Syngenta) come thicker and faster. But truth will out. The French have banned neonics; the Italians, the Germans, and the Slovenians have done so.
But apparently in Britain, we don't believe in the validity of international peer-reviewed science - at least, not when it comes up with an answer that the pesticide industry doesn't like.
Soil Association comments
A new report released today (15 January 2013) claims neonicotinoid insecticides make a significant contribution to crop production in the UK and if UK farmers no longer had access to neonicotinoid pesticides, it would result in a loss of approximately £630million to the economy each year.
Speaking about the report, Peter Melchett, Soil Association policy director said; “We welcome the report from the Humboldt Forum for Food and Agriculture because at the very least it clarifies the choices we need to make over the use of neonicotinoids in the UK.
On the one hand, the chemical companies say we risk the additional costs to farmers amounting to £630 million. On the other, the possible cost of losing pollinating insects is thought to be worth three times as much (£1.8 billion*) to UK farmers.
As this report was funded by Bayer Crop Sciences and Syngenta, it was probably unlikely to conclude that neonicotinoids should be banned. The Soil Association’s Keep Britain Buzzing campaign is calling for neonicotinoids to be banned in the UK and has been campaigning along with other NGOs to highlight this issue.”
Source: Soil Association, 15 January 2013
http://www.soilassociation.org/news/newsstory/articleid/4826
What would the explorers Humboldt and Darwin have said?
Alexander von Humboldt was an aristocratic Prussian with enough money to self-finance his extravagantly-equipped American expedition. Humboldt was immensely influential and was widely regarded as the most famous 'natural philosopher' in the world at the time Charles Darwin was on the Beagle. John Stevens Henslow (1796-1861), Professor of Botany at Cambridge, was perhaps the first man really to recognise Darwin's exceptional abilities. It was Henslow who nurtured Darwin's passion for travel and natural history and inspired him to resume his study of geology. Henslow encouraged Darwin to read Alexander von Humboldt's (1769-1859) account of his travels to the 'New World' which inspired Darwin to plan his own expedition to see sights such as the dragon tree of the Canary Islands. Henslow's parting gift to Darwin when he set sail on the Beagle was a set of the seven volumes of Helen Maria Williams's English translation of Humboldt's Relation historique du voyage aux régions équinoxiales du nouveau continent (published 1814-1825), which she called Humboldt's Personal narrative. The Personal narrative described roughly the first third of Humboldt's expedition from 1799 to 1804 to the 'New Continent' on which he was accompanied by the French botanist Aimé Bonpland. Humboldt's world view of one vast interconnected system, through which he drew three-dimensional lines tracing, for instance, rock formations, atmospheric and oceanic currents and ecological communities is probably the most impressive feature of his Personal narrative. The book is a rich store of facts, history and observations which Darwin and many other writers have been plundering for almost two centuries. Ironically Darwin's Origin of species appeared in the same year as Humboldt's death (1859) and from that time onwards Darwin has rather eclipsed Humboldt as the great South American traveller scientist, at least in the Anglophone world. In truth both men were giants of scientific exploration whose works were fundamental contributions to our understanding of the natural world. What would these explorers have said about the state of our natural world after half a century of agricultural intensification?
Source: Darwin Online
http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Chancellor_Humboldt…
Paul de Zylva comments
I think this industry report will look rather foolish and self serving in a few days' time. There IS a future for farmers without having to rely so heavily on the chemical products pushed by the pesticides industry - products they say are safe but which we now know are not subject to robust testing because they are not properly tested on wild bees. And unless there have been comparable tests of crops grown without treatment claims that there is only one way to produce food - which is effectively what this report is saying - also don't stack up scientifically. This report would have us believe that farmers have no option than to stay on the chemical treadmill. Helping farmers to try out other ways of farming - not necessarily doing away with all chemicals - but at least letting farmers demonstrate their oft-quoted stewardship skills other than those that come from a can or other neonicotinoid treatments will never be given a chance if reports like this a allowed to dictate decisions.
Author: Paul de Zylva, The Bee Cause, Friends of the Earth
Buglife comments
The Humboldt report – A pesticide company funded report into the value of Neonicotinoids in the EU - http://www.neonicreport.com/
I have listed some of my comments on the above report. As I am not an economist, I have been unable to comment on the modelling used etc. However from a scientific point of view, there are some significant concerns.
• The initial data is based on an unknown number of questionnaires sent to farmer in different member states, with no examples of the questionnaires and how the data was extrapolated across the whole of the EU.
• Completely unrealistic scenarios. The authors based financial implications of five analyses. one of which is assuming that all insecticides are withdrawn and there is no other crop protection in use.
• Some of the costs are wrong and the authors have mixed up the costs between countries. Figures are consistently vague and much of the costs are referenced as the ‘authors own calculations’.
• One of the scenarios assumes that other insecticides are used instead of Neonics, but fail to identify what would be used instead and the costs implications of those.
• The worst case scenarios have been used for each time, and ignores a lot of the studies which were referenced by the authors.
• The report fails to take into account increasing resistance to neonicotinoids such as which has been seen in imidacloprid.
• The report fails to consider existing “trial” situations that could validate or invalidate its findings, e.g., bans or restrictions in place in Germany, Austria, Italy, France and Slovenia.
• The report does not take into account the costs that neonicotinoid use has on pollinating insects including; yield losses if lack of pollinating insects, hand pollination, beekeeper losses, honey production reduction and other ecosystem services such as water and soil.
Buglife and others are currently producing an in depth analysis of this report which should be available soon.
Source:
Vanessa Amaral-Rogers (Buglife), personal communication