Behind the Headlines: Buzz Kill

Friday 07th July

New research pours fuel on the fire of the debate over bees, farming and pesticides. Paul Codd takes a look at the implications for UK agricultural policy and the businesses that provide our food.

 

What happened?

The Centre for Ecology and Hydrology published a landmark field study that ties into an ongoing controversy in the food industry – whether farmers’ use of neonicotinoids – the most widely used class of insecticide in the world – is harming  bees, and with it, our ability to feed ourselves in the future.

This controversy matters. The EU is currently considering extending a current moratorium on neonicotinoids ‘neonics’ from flowering-crops (which attract bees) to all crops, regardless of whether if like wheat or sugar beet – they lack flowers, and thus bees; a move which farmers warn risks a ‘devastating impact’ on food production.

The study, depending on exactly who you listen to either shows that continuing to claim that use of neonicotinoids in farming does not harm bees is no longer a tenable position or “in certain circumstances, you may have a positive effect … and in other circumstances you may have a negative effect”

Confused? Welcome to the polarised debate over regulation, farming and food.

Why is it important?

The debate has enormous potential ramifications; for bees, for farmers, the role of science in regulation and ultimately the ability to continue to put British and European food on our plates.

The case in support of neonics is that they are highly targeted, controlling only insects that bite protected plants. And by enabling farmers to secure yields and displacing the use of older, more harmful chemicals they can perhaps counter-intuitively be a good thing for biodiversity on the farm.

The case against is that neonics look to be persistent in the environment, meaning that bees not only face a potential threat from foraging on crops, but potentially from a spread to the wildflowers grown for a more biodiverse habitat.

Neonics, much like any insecticide can harm bees. The nuanced argument has centered on the risk of harm in the real world and where neonics fit in the mosaic of other well-established and lethal threats.

What’s the reaction been?

Initially, a clear cut case– “Large-scale study ‘shows neonic pesticides harm bees’” reported the BBC, “Pesticides damage survival of bee colonies, landmark study shows” led the Guardian.

Yet later coverage brought in nuance “Controversial pesticides may threaten queen bees. Alternatives could be worse”  ran the Washington Post. “Field studies fuel dispute over whether banned pesticides harm bees” ran Reuters.

Syngenta – one of the study funders, raised concerns in the Times that the results could “have been random…” with “…a 5 per cent chance of results not being statistically significant.”

Jon Entine of the Genetic Literacy Project in Slate explored the difficulties in singling out the impact of neonics. “The health problems seemed to have little to do with pesticides.”

Best headline?

“Buzz kill” – The Economist

What’s next

It was hoped that this study would help to settle the debate. With the EU considering significantly expanded regulation, it is certainly timely. That such a move is likely to be bad news for food production is well established, what is less established is whether it will benefit pollinators.

Jenna Galllegos for the Washington Post suggests that the research’s value might be to focus attention on the differences between Hungary, the UK and Germany. The question becomes if neonics have no effect on German bees, what are German farmers doing differently?

As the debate continues, those involved could look to refine their positioning. The anti-neonic argument of ‘not needed, not safe’ is dismissible through reference to unintended consequences and that a dramatic shift to entirely organic farming practices is in itself unlikely to be a good outcome. Similarly the farming focus on economics risks falling into the trap of characterization of ‘profits at all costs’ and accusations of ‘crying wolf’.

Instead, the hope for farmers and bees alike is that the debate receives an injection of nuance. The best answer is likely one that looks at the whole landscape – what works in both conventional and organic farming to promote the highest yields and greatest biodiversity.

As  the Times concluded “The results suggest that other factors can counteract any negative effects of the pesticides.

“Research is needed into whether neonicotinoids can safely be used if bee diseases are reduced and farmers leave uncultivated land around crops.”

With food demand increasing and stresses on pollinators intensifying, the debate needs to shift towards how farmers can be equipped and incentivised to produce more food and at reduced environmental impact. As the UK in particular looks at its post-Brexit agricultural policy as an opportunity to do things differently, expect this to be an argument that will continue to play out.

 

 

Related News & Insight