Bees: Pesticide restrictions must be extended to wheat - new Friends of the Earth report
- Thread starter llamedos
- Start date
Sandra Bell
New Member
The evidence comes from both laboratory and field studies. For example, this is from the scientific journal Nature and summarises a major field study in Sweden:
"Maj Rundlöf, an ecologist at Lund University in Sweden, and her colleagues analysed eight fields of oilseed rape sown with seeds treated with clothianidin and eight fields sown with untreated seeds across southern Sweden.
Honeybees did not respond differently in the treated and untreated fields. But the researchers found that wild-bee density in treated fields was around half that in untreated fields. Nests of solitary bees and bumblebee-colony growth were also reduced in treated fields. “I’m worried about the effects on wild bees,” says Rundlöf.
She suggests that honeybees have larger colony sizes, which could sustain higher losses of foraging bees before showing overall health effects. But that suggests another problem. “Honeybees are the model organism that is used in toxicity testing for pesticides,” she says. If they are not representative of bees in general, it could explain why more studies have not detected negative effects".
Prof. Dave Goulson has done a useful summary of evidence but I can't paste it here - probably makes this post too long so I will try putting it in a separate reply.
Sandra Bell
New Member
Here's the summary of evidence on wild bees from Prof Dave Goulson describing both field and lab studies:
Let’s look at what we actually do know with certainty about neonics:
1) These are very widely used neurotoxins, applied extensively to many arable, horticultural and ornamental crops, and also found in veterinary products such as flea treatments for dogs and cats. They have high persistence so last for years in soil (Goulson 2013; Bonmatin et al. 2015). They are water soluble and are now routinely found in streams and ponds around the world (Bonmatin et al. 2015). They are also found in the pollen and nectar of wildflowers growing near treated crops (Botias et al. 2015; David et al. 2016), as well as in the pollen and nectar of the crop itself.
2) When we place honeybee or bumblebee nests onto farmland, the pollen and nectar stores that they gather often contain a cocktail of several neonics (and a bunch of other pesticides, mainly fungicides). Concentrations of neonics in their food typically range from 1 to ~10 ppb, sometimes more (which of course means that your breakfast honey also likely contains these neurotoxins) (Botias et al. 2015).
3) If we dose honeybees or bumblebees in the lab or in cages with food spiked with these same concentrations of neonics (i.e. between 1 and 10ppb), we get the following range of effects: reduced longevity, impaired immune response, impaired learning, reduced egg laying in queens, reduced fertility in males (reviewed in Pisa et al. 2015; Straub et al 2016). [Note that not every single study finds the same effects and a few have found no effects, presumably due to differences in methods, the particular neonic and dose used, the age and health of the bees used, the bee species studied etc. It isn’t simple, but the overwhelming evidence is that neonics do harm bees at field-realistic doses]
4) When bumblebee colonies are exposed to field realistic doses (Whitehorn et al. 2012; Arce et al. 2016) or exposed to treated crops in a field setting (Goulson 2015; Rundlof et al. 2015), the colonies perform very poorly, grow slowly and produce few queens.
5) Solitary bees perform poorly when near treated crops; fewer wild bees are found on the crop itself, and Osmia bees fail to nest entirely near treated crops (Rundlof et al. 2015).
6) Declines of wild bees and butterflies in the UK strongly correlate with geographic patterns of neonic use (Woodcock et al. 2016; Gilburn et al. 2015). [The pesticide industry immediately respond to this by saying “correlation is not proof of causation”. Of course this is also what the tobacco industry said about cancer and smoking. Correlation is not proof, but it is good confirmation of other evidence]
7) When honeybee colonies are exposed to treated crops, the deleterious effects on individual bees described in (3) do not seem to translate into significant harm to the colonies, at least inside a single year (e.g. Pilling et al. 2013; Cutler & Scott-Dupree 2007; Rundlof et al. 2015). Note that all but one of these studies (Rundlof et al. 2015) were performed by the agrochemical industry themselves or funded by them, and thus should probably be treated with a pinch of salt. If we take them all at face value, this does not rule out the possibility that exposure to neonics might contribute to colony loss in the longer term, for example by reducing queen longevity/ fecundity, but it does seem that there is no dramatic and immediate effect on honeybee colonies in the way that there is with bumblebees and solitary bees. Perhaps the very large colonies of honeybees buffer them against the impacts of pesticides, at least in the short term.
Overall, the case that neonics harm bumblebees is iron-clad. There are dozens of studies from lab to full field experiments that provide a convincing and coherent body of evidence. The case that neonics cause honeybee colonies to die has not been proven beyond doubt, though it would seem highly likely that having their food laced with neurotoxins at doses that are known to leave individual bees susceptible to disease, dazed and confused isn’t helping them cope with their many other problems.
Let’s look at what we actually do know with certainty about neonics:
1) These are very widely used neurotoxins, applied extensively to many arable, horticultural and ornamental crops, and also found in veterinary products such as flea treatments for dogs and cats. They have high persistence so last for years in soil (Goulson 2013; Bonmatin et al. 2015). They are water soluble and are now routinely found in streams and ponds around the world (Bonmatin et al. 2015). They are also found in the pollen and nectar of wildflowers growing near treated crops (Botias et al. 2015; David et al. 2016), as well as in the pollen and nectar of the crop itself.
2) When we place honeybee or bumblebee nests onto farmland, the pollen and nectar stores that they gather often contain a cocktail of several neonics (and a bunch of other pesticides, mainly fungicides). Concentrations of neonics in their food typically range from 1 to ~10 ppb, sometimes more (which of course means that your breakfast honey also likely contains these neurotoxins) (Botias et al. 2015).
3) If we dose honeybees or bumblebees in the lab or in cages with food spiked with these same concentrations of neonics (i.e. between 1 and 10ppb), we get the following range of effects: reduced longevity, impaired immune response, impaired learning, reduced egg laying in queens, reduced fertility in males (reviewed in Pisa et al. 2015; Straub et al 2016). [Note that not every single study finds the same effects and a few have found no effects, presumably due to differences in methods, the particular neonic and dose used, the age and health of the bees used, the bee species studied etc. It isn’t simple, but the overwhelming evidence is that neonics do harm bees at field-realistic doses]
4) When bumblebee colonies are exposed to field realistic doses (Whitehorn et al. 2012; Arce et al. 2016) or exposed to treated crops in a field setting (Goulson 2015; Rundlof et al. 2015), the colonies perform very poorly, grow slowly and produce few queens.
5) Solitary bees perform poorly when near treated crops; fewer wild bees are found on the crop itself, and Osmia bees fail to nest entirely near treated crops (Rundlof et al. 2015).
6) Declines of wild bees and butterflies in the UK strongly correlate with geographic patterns of neonic use (Woodcock et al. 2016; Gilburn et al. 2015). [The pesticide industry immediately respond to this by saying “correlation is not proof of causation”. Of course this is also what the tobacco industry said about cancer and smoking. Correlation is not proof, but it is good confirmation of other evidence]
7) When honeybee colonies are exposed to treated crops, the deleterious effects on individual bees described in (3) do not seem to translate into significant harm to the colonies, at least inside a single year (e.g. Pilling et al. 2013; Cutler & Scott-Dupree 2007; Rundlof et al. 2015). Note that all but one of these studies (Rundlof et al. 2015) were performed by the agrochemical industry themselves or funded by them, and thus should probably be treated with a pinch of salt. If we take them all at face value, this does not rule out the possibility that exposure to neonics might contribute to colony loss in the longer term, for example by reducing queen longevity/ fecundity, but it does seem that there is no dramatic and immediate effect on honeybee colonies in the way that there is with bumblebees and solitary bees. Perhaps the very large colonies of honeybees buffer them against the impacts of pesticides, at least in the short term.
Overall, the case that neonics harm bumblebees is iron-clad. There are dozens of studies from lab to full field experiments that provide a convincing and coherent body of evidence. The case that neonics cause honeybee colonies to die has not been proven beyond doubt, though it would seem highly likely that having their food laced with neurotoxins at doses that are known to leave individual bees susceptible to disease, dazed and confused isn’t helping them cope with their many other problems.
Sandra Bell
New Member
And on the issue of wheat - the European Food Safety Authority concluded in 2016 that in terms of risks to bees;
"For all the field uses considered, in the succeeding crop scenario, a high risk was identified or high risk could not be excluded" - field uses included wheat and the succeeding crop scenario describes the risk to bees foraging in nectar or pollen in succeeding crops e.g. OSR grown after wheat.
It also concluded "For uses as seed treatment of winter cereals the risk from exposure via dust was indicated as high" which relates to dust drift in field margins or adjacent crops.
"For all the field uses considered, in the succeeding crop scenario, a high risk was identified or high risk could not be excluded" - field uses included wheat and the succeeding crop scenario describes the risk to bees foraging in nectar or pollen in succeeding crops e.g. OSR grown after wheat.
It also concluded "For uses as seed treatment of winter cereals the risk from exposure via dust was indicated as high" which relates to dust drift in field margins or adjacent crops.
Thanks for the reply,any chance you could post what the pollen in the fields actually contains eg how much of each pesticide was found because putting fungicides into the mix may be putting up the figures,most osr is treated with fungicide at flowing time so no surprise that it was found in the pollen.
Sandra Bell
New Member
I tried to paste a table with this data in but the formatting gets lost in the process so I've pasted the text describing the data and also uploaded the whole PDF - the table for residues in pollen and nectar in treated flowering crops is on page 13. Or you can download the report yourself from here: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/01/06/098897.full.pdf+html
2.1.1 Risk of exposure from pollen and nectar of treated flowering crops
Using data from 30 (clothianidin), 16 (thiamethoxam) and 29 (imidacloprid) outdoor studies and known authorised application rates, EFSA (2013a; 2013b; 2013c) calculated expected residue rates in pollen and nectar of the studied crops (Table 1). Levels are variable but all are within one order of magnitude. Levels in pollen are consistently higher than levels in nectar. Godfray et al. (2014) reviewed 20 published studies to calculate an arithmetic mean maximum level of 1.9 ppb for nectar and 6.1 ppb for pollen in treated crops, in line with the EFSA findings.
Since 2014 a number of studies have been published which report neonicotinoid concentrations in the pollen and nectar of neonicotinoid-treated flowering crops. These results have been approximately in line with the concentrations reported by EFSA and Godfray et al. In oilseed rape treated with thiamethoxam, Botías et al. (2015) found average concentrations of 3.26 ng/g of thiamethoxam, 2.27 ng/g of clothianidin and 1.68 ng/g of thiacloprid in the pollen. Oilseed rape nectar contained similar average concentrations of 3.20 ng/g of thiamethoxam, 2.18 ng/g of clothianidin and 0.26 ng/g of thiacloprid. Xu et al. (2016) found average levels of clothianidin in oilseed rape of 0.6 ng/g. No pollen samples were taken. In maize pollen, Stewart et al. (2014) found average thiamethoxam and clothianidin levels between the limit of detection (LOD) of 1 ng/g to 5.9 ng/g across a range of seed treatments. Xu et al. (2016) found average clothianidin concentration of 1.8 ng/g in maize pollen. Additionally, Stewart et al. (2014) found no neonicotinoid residues in soybean flowers or cotton nectar.
Thanks for that I will have a proper look later,just one more question the results are usually in PPB what are those levels that are reported in the reports (ng/g) thanks
Ok thanks now to find out if it's good or bad
Absolutely. A number is meaningless without knowing what the toxicity actually is. What I'd like to see or hear is the risk - it is clear that neonics are a hazard.
dstudent
Member
I ve been following this very interesting thread, I received this article and it caught my eye so I thought I should post it. D
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/new...oneybees-questioned-by-st-andrews-scientists/
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/new...oneybees-questioned-by-st-andrews-scientists/
I have had time to read it now and its not very clear on some of the finding that you are stating as fact
1) wildflower pollen :it says that neonics have been found in the wildflowers but then goes on about the dust from drilling being the problem so has any been found in wildflower not contaminated by dust
2)foraging bees being given a solution containing neonics and sugar not feeding outside as much as the bee colonies,was the second colonies also given the solution minus the neonics?
3)are the trails that are being used from spring or winter drilling?
Factor in significant potential losses through endocrine disruptor legislation as well as this and there wont be much in the way of plant protection products left before Brexit is complete - precious little chance of things being re-introduced afterwards too... I can see the headlines now!
shakerator
Member
- Location
- LINCS
Neonics off patent
Diamides on and in
Everyone wins except farmer benefitting from post patent tech (this is key)
I would not want to be a generics manufacturer for the next few years
casemx 270
Member
- Location
- East midlands
Are Diamides approved for use yet ?
Not a fan of any insecticide but the problem is finding unbiased evidence, the comment in the first paragraph is contradictory IMVHO. If they persist for years in the soil and if its been tested thats true how does that the fact that it also says they are soluble in water ring true, IMVHO both "facts" cant be true, at least in a highish rainfall country
shakerator
Member
- Location
- LINCS
well it looks like deter et al will be going in a matter of weeks with the UK U turn!
like the glpyho ban- the law of unintended consequences
get ready for huge expansion of pyrethroids before diamides are fully registered, in the same way to be ready for a greater proportion of roundupready treated base commodities in our supply chain from countries not considering the ban.
Both decisions will increase pesticide use on the crop imv!
It seems the government/EU want the proportion of income spent on food to seriously ramp up from <15% to more like 70%. Not good for other industries, but i'm sure by the time the effects are apparent something else may be to blame !
@Guy Smith did lobbying fall on deaf ears?
@Sandra Bell well done! i genuinely hope an organic European Union doesn't end in disaster.
like the glpyho ban- the law of unintended consequences
get ready for huge expansion of pyrethroids before diamides are fully registered, in the same way to be ready for a greater proportion of roundupready treated base commodities in our supply chain from countries not considering the ban.
Both decisions will increase pesticide use on the crop imv!
It seems the government/EU want the proportion of income spent on food to seriously ramp up from <15% to more like 70%. Not good for other industries, but i'm sure by the time the effects are apparent something else may be to blame !
@Guy Smith did lobbying fall on deaf ears?
@Sandra Bell well done! i genuinely hope an organic European Union doesn't end in disaster.
Mr Charisma
Member
- Location
- stratford on Avon
I would love a quick ride in that Delorian of Marty McFly ,,,,, go forwards let's say 25 years and see what has happened ,,,,,,, probably find a very old wrinkly Bob Geldof on the news shouting that it's important to give money now to his new band aid song to raise money for the starving millions in Europe !!!!!!
yellow belly
Member
- Location
- south west lincolnshire
not sure that Europe will starve as the 450 million people can afford to buy it ahead of those not so wealthy in other continents
the 3 billion poorest in the world will starve when Europe imports it food from them
it took 35 years of investment in higher food production for Europe to feed its self after the mass starvation resulting from ww2 which lasted 5 years