Matt Ridley (The Rational Optimist) on the neonic moratorium

[Jon]

Dave Goulson does not think much of Matt Ridley's article.

I’m one of the scientists who have been conducting this “no good” science, so you might not be surprised to hear that I have a rather different view of the situation. The EU decision was taken only after a team of scientists at the European Food Standard’s Agency had spent 6 months reviewing all the scientific evidence. They concluded that neonics pose an “unacceptable risk” to bees, and hence a majority of EU counties voted for the moratorium. The UK’s Environmental Audit Committee, a cross-party group of MPs, came to the same conclusion, and urged our government to support the ban. The US Fish & Wildlife Service also concurred, and have banned use of all neonics on land they administer. Most recently, a team of 30 scientists, of which I was one, reviewed 800 papers on this topic and in a series of 8 articles published in the journal Environmental Science and Pollution Research, concluded that “The combination of prophylactic use, persistence, mobility, systemic properties and chronic toxicity [of neonicotinoids] is predicted to result in substantial impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning”.

http://splash.sussex.ac.uk/blog/for/...PYeHQ.facebook

[Silvbee]

Dave Goulson does not think much of Matt Ridley's article.


http://splash.sussex.ac.uk/blog/for/...PYeHQ.facebook

Hear hear. Thanks for putting this up Jon.

[Jon]

The evidence is stronger for neonicotinoids causing problems for bumble bees and solitary bees than it is re. honeybees.

[Silvbee]

The evidence is stronger for neonicotinoids causing problems for bumble bees and solitary bees than it is re. honeybees.

Hmm not sure I'd agree with that. If anything I think the research has been too honeybee focused and that's coming from a beekeeper.

[Jon]

Hmm not sure I'd agree with that. If anything I think the research has been too honeybee focused and that's coming from a beekeeper.

That's probably true and this was brought up in the parliamentary sessions but Goulson and others are now looking at the effects on different insect species. Other than the well documented planter dust incidents I have not seen much, if any, evidence than seed treated crops have caused problems for honeybees. Most of the studies have looked at exposure levels way above field realistic for both pollen and nectar.

[fatshark]

Interesting short article in The Times yesterday headed "Scientists 'fixed evidence' to get pesticides banned" by Ben Webster. It claims to have seen a leaked memo (from June 2010) referring to a meeting between Piet Wit of IUCN and Maartin Bijleveld van Lexmond, Chair of the Task Force on Systemic Pesticides, in which they planned the coordinated publication of papers to describe the impact of neonics and then call for their ban.

From the limited information available 'fixed evidence' seems a bit strong … there's certainly nothing in the article to say the data was fabricated (which is not saying the science was any good either). However, as the Bayer/Syngenta spokesman points out, the coordinated publication of papers with the intention of getting a banning policy in place suggests that the Task Force might not be entirely independent or scientifically rigorous.

I wonder how this came to be leaked now? Is there a review ongoing of the current moratorium?

[perhaps this should be in the Over the Edge conspiracy theory sub-forum?]