English

The effect of imidacloprid and fipronil on Sympetrum infuscatum larvae and adults during the rice cultivation period was monitored using an experimental micro-paddy lysimeter (MPL) system. Twenty-two hatched larvae were laid on the soil surface of each MPL. MPLs were treated with imidacloprid, fipronil, and the control MPL was left untreated. The pesticide concentration, S. infuscatum larval and adult populations, and larval emergence time were monitored in each MPL.

Syngenta has written to farm ministers in France and The Netherlands to urge them to vote down an EU proposal to ban neonicotinoid pesticides. Both countries have voiced their opposition against the continued use of neonicotinoids, which some scientists have linked to declining bee populations. The letter claims that the varroa mite and the diseases it transmits are the "principal causes of bee health". It asks why countries such as Scotland and Switzerland have poor bee health, despite their very limited use of neonicotinoid seed treatment. However, bee populations in Australia, where neonicotinoids are widely used, are "thriving". In its letter, Syngenta claims the EFSA evaluation on Cruiser (thiamethoxam) ignored key field studies and found "no unacceptable or unmanageable risks to bee populations". "Given the fact that thiamethoxam has been used on millions of hectares of French crops without damaging the health of bees over the past X years, it's no surprise that EFSA acknowledged that its latest theoretical evaluation contained a 'high level of uncertainty'," the letter says. Later this month, member states will be asked to vote on an European Commission proposal for a two-year ban on the use of neonicotinoids on crops considered attractive to bees, such as oilseed rape, maize, sunflowers and cotton. France and The Netherlands support a ban, but the UK, Germany and Spain are understood to be against it. If enough countries vote against the proposal, a blocking minority of votes could derail a ban. An industry source said: "For the proposal to be passed, there has to be a qualified majority - around two-thirds of the vote. The bigger EU countries have more votes than the smaller EU countries. If you were to get Spain, Germany and the UK to vote against a ban, then you would be running very close to a blocking minority."

Satellite technology and advances in robotics are set to revolutionise the future of farming. Out go the heavy, soil destroying combines and tractors, in come a light army of mini robots which weed, spray and pick crops at the optimum time. Expert agronomists will advise thousands of farmers at a time. Using real data, farmers will be able to maximise the yield and quality of the crops as they leave the field. Sarah Cruddas meets the scientists engineering the robotic shepherds of the future, and hops into the cab of a self-driving tractor to experience labour and fuel saving precision farming. She also hears from Science Minister, David Willetts who believes that the UK can become Europe's centre of satellite technology. The data provided will, in the coming years, become more and more detailed enabling farmers to have a greater understanding of their land and allow them to produce yield maps and farm more efficiently than ever before. Costing The Earth ask if farms of the future will be run by a fleet of robots: from crop-picking automatons to swarms of electronic bees, and whether the farmer of the future be found in a control centre rather than out in a muddy field.

The British Government is completely free to ignore recommendations from European safety regulators that controversial nerve-agent pesticides should not be used on crops visited by bees, MPs were told. Herman Fontier, head of the pesticides division of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), told a Parliamentary committee that his organisation’s recommendation two weeks ago that neonicotinoid pesticides, widely blamed for bee declines around the world, should be kept away from bees, was merely a risk assessment – and it was up to individual EU member states whether or not to act on it. In Britain the Environment Secretary, Owen Patterson, has already indicated that the Government is likely to ignore the recommendation and is opposed to an immediate ban on three neonicotinoids highlighted by the EFSA report, imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam, made by the giant agribusiness companies Bayer and Syngenta. Mr Patterson’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is carrying out its own research into neonicotinoids and bees. The EFSA report, which came after more than 30 scientific papers implicating the chemicals in damage to bees and bee colonies, said that they “pose a number of risks to bee health”. But asked by the Green MP Caroline Lucas, at a hearing of the Environment Audit Committee, whether or not EFSA could take the recommendation any further, Mr Fontier said they could not. His organisation dealt only with risk assessment, not with risk management, he said. “A lot of scientific rigour has gone into your conclusion that these chemicals should only be used on crops not attractive to bees, and that’s a fairly catergorical statement,” Ms Lucas said. “But if a member state decides to do something completely different, do you just have to say, ‘fine, there’s nothing we can do’?” “There’s nothing, really nothing more we can do,” Mr Fontier said.

While European policymakers are taking steps to protect bees from harmful pesticides, EPA is poised to approve yet another bee-toxic pesticide for use here in the U.S. Instead of following the science and protecting bees from known harms, the agency is set to conditionally register another new pesticide known to harm bees, sulfoxaflor, for a broad variety of uses. Sulfoxaflor is a cousin to imidacloprid and clothianidin, with shared mechanisms of action (all work on the same bee brain synapses — nicotinic acetylcholine receptors).

On 31 January the EU Commission recommended that three neonicotinoid pesticides be withdrawn on 1 July. The ban is to be valid for two years initially. The affected insecticides are Clothianidin and Imidacloprid produced by BAYER as well as Thiamethoxam made by SYNGENTA. The member states are to vote on this proposal at the end of February. While the Coalition against BAYER Dangers (CBG) has welcomed this announcement as a “step in the right direction”, it demands a permanent ban. Moreover, the manufacturers would have to be liable for any damages caused. Philipp Mimkes, board member of the Coalition against BAYER Dangers (CBG), said: “Since 1998 we have been demanding a ban on neonicotinoids because of their dangers for bees. BAYER and SYNGENTA have made billions with these substances. It is unacceptable that the corporations are now pocketing the profits while the general public has to pay for the damages caused!”.

The pesticide brew in many ponds bordering Midwestern cornfields is not only affecting the sexual development of frogs, but is making them more prone to deadly bacterial meningitis, according to a new study by University of California, Berkeley, scientists. These physiological effects combine with environmental disruptions to make the life of a frog seem like something out of a horror movie and are likely among the factors causing a decline in amphibian populations worldwide, the researchers said. "If you look at one of these frogs, it's probably a hermaphrodite - plus, it metamorphoses late, which means it is subject to its pool drying up before it can become a frog," said lead researcher Tyrone Hayes, professor of integrative biology at UC Berkeley. "It's also smaller, if it metamorphoses at all, which increases the likelihood it will be eaten and decreases its ability to eat. Plus, it's immuno-suppressed, so more prone to die from infection." The stress on the frogs is increasing stress hormone levels, he found, which in turn create holes in the thymus gland that likely cause the impaired immune response. "It's not the pesticides alone or introduced predators or ultraviolet light or global warming that's causing this decline, but the interaction between these on an animal that is pretty sensitive to its environment," said Hayes.

The company believes that the Commission's overly conservative interpretation of the precautionary principle is a missed opportunity to achieve a fair and proportional solution. Bayer CropScience shares the concerns surrounding bee health and has been investing heavily in research to minimize the impact of crop protection products on bees and in extensive stewardship measures supporting the responsible and proper use of its products. The company continues to believe in the responsible use of neonicotinoid-containing products which have been used for many years and are vital to European farmers. Bayer CropScience asks the Member States to adhere to the principles of proportionality when addressing the Commission's proposal and refer back to solid science before taking any measures. Any disproportionate action would jeopardize the competitiveness of European agriculture and finally lead to higher costs for food, feed, fiber and renewable raw materials and have an enormous economic impact throughout the whole food chain.

Monsanto has been forced to accept the opinion of the Advertising Code Committee in the Netherlands over a misleading advertisement on their agrochemical Roundup. The company did not appeal against the decision of the committee of 11 December 2012. The ad titled "Roundup, the facts" appeared in June 2012 in the Telegraph and The Volkskrant. This advertising is misleading in the propositions that the herbicide "would have no effect on the soil", "would not remain in the soil" and "would not penetrate the soil," the Advertising Code Committee said. The complaint was filed against by campaign website toxicsoy.org together with Corporate Europe Observatory and Pesticide Action Network. The complaint was substantiated with references to scientific studies from different countries. Tjerk Dalhuisen, one of the authors, says, "The ad was trying to give the impression that Roundup is harmless. It contained gross factual inaccuracies. Roundup is harmful to the soil and is a major problem for the drinking water supply. Roundup causes considerable damage to humans, animals and nature."