The European Union’s addiction to the precautionary
principle — which says in effect that the risks of new technologies must be
measured against perfection, not against the risks of existing technologies —
has caused many perverse policy decisions. It may now have produced a result
that has proved so utterly foot-shooting, so swiftly, that even Eurocrats might
notice the environmental disaster they have created.
All across southeast Britain this autumn, crops of oilseed
rape are dying because of infestation by flea beetles. The direct cause
of the problem is the two-year ban on pesticides called neonicotinoids brought
in by the EU over British objections at the tail end of last year.
The ban was
justified on the precautionary ground that neonics might be causing the mass
decline of bees. There is, by the way, no mass decline of bees, as I shall
explain.
Neonics are primarily used as a seed dressing: seeds are
soaked in the chemical so that the plant grows up protected from pests and —
crucially — often does not need to be sprayed. The beauty of this is that it
targets pests, such as flea beetles, that eat the plant, but not the bystanders
such as other insects. In the laboratory, bees exposed to high doses of neonics
do indeed die or become confused. So they should — that’s what the word
“insecticide” means.
Yet large-scale field studies and real world evidence
consistently demonstrate that rape pollen does not contain a high enough dose
to have an impact on bee colonies. The Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs report on the subject concluded that lab studies used to justify
the EU ban severely overdosed their bees and that bees are not affected by
neonics under normal conditions. Australian regulators claim that neonics have
actually improved the environment for bees by replacing older pesticides. And
in the US, the Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection
Agency have so far resisted calls to ban neonics for much the same reason.
Even though there was literally no good science linking
neonics to bee deaths in fields, they were banned anyway for use on flowering
crops in Europe. Friends of the Earth, which lobbied for the ban, opined that
this would make no difference to farmers. Dave Goulson, a bee activist and
author of a fine book on bumblebees called A Sting in the Tale, was widely
quoted as saying that farmers were wasting their money on neonics anyway;
though how he knew this was not clear. Presumably he thinks farmers are stupid.
Well, the environmentalists were wrong. The loss of the
rape cropthis autumn is approaching 50 per cent in Hampshire and
not much less in other parts of the country. Farmers in Germany, the EU’s
largest producer of rape, are also reporting widespread damage. Since rape is
one of the main flower crops, providing huge amounts of pollen and nectar for
bees, this will hurt wild bee numbers as well as farmers’ livelihoods.
Farmers are instead reluctantly using pyrethroids. These
older insecticides are less effective against pests (flea beetles are becoming
resistant to them), more dangerous to other insects, especially threatening to
aquatic invertebrates when they seep into streams and less safe to handle. So
the result will be more insect deaths. In a panic, Defra has just announced
that it will allow the use of two neonics, but — and here you have to laugh or
you would cry — both are sprayed on
the flowering crop, rather than used to dress seed! So they definitely can harm
bees.
The ban was brought in entirely to placate green lobby
groups, which have privileged and direct access to unelected European officials
in policymaking. They hotted up their followers, using the misleading lab
studies, to bombard politicians on the topic. The former health commissioner,
Tonio Borg, felt so inundated by emails that he had to do something. Owen
Paterson, as environment secretary, received 85,000 emails to his parliamentary
address alone. Yet he warned colleagues that a ban was unjustified and would be
counterproductive. He was right.
Back to bees. What decline? The number of honeybee hives in
the world is at a record high. The number in Europe is higher than it was in
the early 1990s when neonics were introduced. Hive mortality in Britain was
unusually low in the year before the neonic ban. It’s a myth that honeybees are
in dire straits.
That’s not to say beekeepers don’t have problems.
There was a severe problem eight years ago caused by the mysterious colony
collapse disorder — a phenomenon that has happened throughout history and seems
once again to have disappeared. Greens tried to blame it on genetically
modified crops, but it happened in countries with no GM crops. The battle
against the varroa mite continues to be hard. A newly virulent strain of
tobacco ringspot virus has made the rare leap from infecting plants to
infecting bees.
What about wild bees, and bumblebees in particular? Having
read again and again of the terrible decline of bumblebees, I set out to find
some graphs or tables. I came away empty-handed. In Britain some species
contracted their ranges and some expanded during the 20th century. The
specialist species seem to have suffered while the generalists have thrived.
But claims of a continuing fall in the abundance of bumblebees over the past 20
years seem to be entirely anecdotal.
As Dr Goulson recounts in his book, it’s hard to study
bumblebee nests because so many get destroyed by badgers. The huge expansion of
the badger population in recent years cannot have helped the populations of
their favourite prey.
Full disclosure: I have a farm. My oilseed rape is looking
all right this year, but the farmer is not happy at having to use pyrethroids
and nor am I. The local beekeeper is hopping mad about the neonic ban, which he
thinks has done more harm than good. And he’s genuinely worried about a new
threat to honeybees from the small hive beetle, which is spreading in Italy, a
major source of honeybees and queens for Britain. Currently there is free
movement of potentially contaminated bees from Italy into the UK. In short,
nobody’s taking any precautions about the real threats.
Matt Ridley, a member of the British House of Lords, is an acclaimed author who blogs at www.rationaloptimist.com. This article was first published the The Times.
1 comment:
Just another case of clever academics making decisions that affect the people who know what should happen, but don't get a say because they are using common sense & real life experience rather than some lie that has come from a lecturer or similar clever person that presents the lie as the truth & then dribbles on about it for so long that it becomes the truth in the eyes of those that don't know, but are in a position where they make the decisions that end causing more problems in the long run.
Post a Comment