FROM THE DRUDGE REPORT
EU to ban pesticides linked to bee deaths
A vote at the European Commission on Monday means a continent-wide ban on pesticides linked to bee deaths could be in place later this year.
Neonicotinoid pesticides are new
nicotine-like chemicals that act on the nervous systems of insects, and
are blamed for damaging bees’ brains Photo: AP
1:36PM BST 29 Apr 2013
23 Comments
Neonicotinoid chemicals in sprays are believed to harm bees, whose numbers
have been falling across Europe.
The European Commission says they should be restricted to crops not attractive
to bees and other pollinators, but many farmers and crop experts have argued
that there is insufficient data.
The Commission will impose a two-year restriction on neonicotinoids after 15
countries voted in favour of a ban on Monday - not enough to form a
qualified majority, but EU rules mean a hung vote allows the proposals to
pass.
The UK was not among the countries voting in favour of the ban, which could be
in force later this year, as it argues that the science behind the proposal
is inconclusive.
Neonicotinoid pesticides are new nicotine-like chemicals that act on the
nervous systems of insects, and are blamed for damaging bees’ brains so the
insects cannot find flowers to feed on and eventually die.
Wild species such as honey bees are said to be responsible for pollinating
around one-third of the world's crop production.
There was an EU vote on the matter last month but it was inconclusive, so the Commission proposal went to an appeals committee, which voted today.
Some restrictions are already in place for neonicotinoids in France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia.
Andrew Pendleton, head of campaigns at Friends of the Earth, said: “This decision is a significant victory for common sense and our beleagured bee populations.
"Restricting the use of these pesticides could be an historic milestone on the road to recovery for these crucial pollinators.
"The UK government's refusal to back restrictions on these chemicals, despite growing scientific concern about their impact, is yet another blow to its environmental credibility.
"Ministers must now help farmers to grow and protect crops, but without relying so heavily on chemicals – especially those linked to bee decline.”
Nick Von Westenholz, from the Crop Protection Association, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme this morning that farmers needed to use neonicotinoid pesticides in order to have high enough crop yields to meet the demand of the world's growing population.
Commenting on studies linking neonicotinoid pesticides to bee death, he said: "The UK government recently published a review of the evidence which showed there was nothing to show, out in the field, in real life in the environment, that these insecticides impact adversely on bee health."
Environment groups handed in a petition at No.10 last week with 300,000 signatures calling on the government to support the EU proposals.
But despite the public outcry Sir Mark Walport, the government’s new chief scientific adviser, insisted that a ban was not the best way forward for Britain.
In one of his first statements in post, Sir Mark explained that a ban would mean using more old fashioned pesticides that are not only more expensive but could be more damaging to wildlife.
The National Farmers Union estimate that banning neonicotinoids could cost the UK economy £630 million every year because of the loss in yield of crops like oilseed rape.
Tim Lovett, director of public affairs at the British Beekeepers Association, agreed that a ban could make the situation worse for bees.
"The public want good quality food at the lowest possible price they can get, that means intensive farming and that means they have to use crop protection measures," he said. "We have to be pragmatic. If we are going to use pesticides lets use the least damaging possible."
A Defra spokesperson said: “As the proposal currently stands we could not support an outright ban. We have always been clear that a healthy bee population is our top priority that’s why decisions need to be taken using the best possible scientific evidence and we want to work with the Commission to achieve this. Any action taken must be proportionate and not have any unforeseen knock-on effects
