here - United Kingdom Parliament
here - United Kingdom Parliament
here - United Kingdom Parliament
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
1747 Pollinators and Pesticides<br />
6 JUNE 2013 Pollinators and Pesticides 1748<br />
Let me move on to the question of why insect populations<br />
might be declining. I want to make it clear at the outset<br />
that the health of insect pollinators is defined by a<br />
range of factors, including not only pesticides but<br />
urbanisation, loss of habitat, agricultural intensification<br />
and climate change; obviously, weather patterns affect<br />
things as well.<br />
Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab):<br />
My hon. Friend will know that the Government intend<br />
to issue—shortly, I believe—planning guidance on<br />
biodiversity. Does she agree that councils need to be<br />
encouraged and given the impetus to protect and restore<br />
bee-friendly habitats in their own neighbourhoods, which<br />
would make a real contribution to addressing the point<br />
she is making?<br />
Joan Walley: I thank my right hon. Friend; she makes<br />
exactly the right point, and I absolutely agree. We need<br />
safe havens for wildlife, especially in urban areas, although<br />
it is not just about urban areas. The planning system<br />
underpins the whole issue of our natural capital and<br />
biodiversity. If we do not have guidance on how we<br />
protect and enhance our natural environment, the bees<br />
do not stand a chance.<br />
Throughout our inquiry, the Environmental Audit<br />
Committee acknowledged the importance of sustaining<br />
agricultural yields, controlling pests effectively and<br />
maintaining food security. Indeed, those concerns were<br />
reflected in our final report. Equally, we were mindful<br />
of the value of insect pollinators as an ecosystem<br />
service to UK agriculture. I think that Members will be<br />
aware of the various estimates of the agricultural value<br />
of insect pollination, ranging from £500 million to<br />
£1.9 billion, depending on whether one takes into account<br />
the cost of replacement hand pollination. We felt that<br />
those issues ought to be given a value and taken into<br />
account.<br />
In case anyone thinks that our report is just about a<br />
moratorium on certain neonicotinoids, I hope they will<br />
have a chance to read it in full and make themselves<br />
aware of the cross-cutting nature of our work and the<br />
importance that we give to using the common agricultural<br />
policy control to help British farming move as quickly<br />
as possible to integrated pest management.<br />
As I have said, the Committee considered a range of<br />
factors that affect insect pollinators, but we were driven<br />
to scrutinise the effects of one family of insecticides—<br />
neonicotinoids—by the weight of peer-reviewed scientific<br />
evidence. For Members who are not familiar with<br />
neonicotinoids, I should say that they are a class of<br />
insecticide derived from nicotine. Following their<br />
introduction in the mid-’90s, they have been widely used<br />
in the UK on oilseed rape, cereals, maize, sugar beet<br />
and crops grown in glass houses. The body of evidence<br />
indicating that neonicotinoids cause acute harm to bees<br />
grew appreciably in the course of our inquiry, as new<br />
studies were published in heavyweight journals such as<br />
Science and Nature. In this case, harm to bees includes<br />
increased susceptibility to disease and reduced foraging<br />
and reproduction. If Members are interested in the<br />
particular scientific studies, I refer them to the Henry,<br />
Whitehorn and Gill experiments.<br />
We heard that 94% of published peer-reviewed<br />
experiments on the effects of neonicotinoids on bees<br />
found evidence of acute harm. The Department for<br />
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the agri-chemical<br />
industry argued throughout our inquiry that the dosage<br />
used in those laboratory experiments was too high. In<br />
response it is worth pointing out that those studies used<br />
dosages derived from the best available data on the<br />
concentrations of neonicotinoids that bees encounter in<br />
the field.<br />
The agri-chemical industry also likes to cite its own<br />
tests as proof that neonicotinoids cannot harm bees.<br />
However, the industry studies by which neonicotinoids<br />
were licensed for use in the European Union were not<br />
peer reviewed and are not open to scrutiny due to the<br />
supposed commercial sensitivity of the data. Furthermore,<br />
we found evidence in relation to the licensing of<br />
imidacloprid which calls into question altogether the<br />
rigour of the testing regime.<br />
Against that background, we went on to consider the<br />
precautionary principle. By definition, insecticides kill<br />
insects. The precautionary question is whether neonicotinoid<br />
insecticides have an unsustainable impact on insect<br />
pollinators. The 1992 <strong>United</strong> Nations Rio declaration<br />
on environment and development states:<br />
“W<strong>here</strong> t<strong>here</strong> are threats of serious and irreversible damage,<br />
lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for<br />
postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental<br />
degradation.”<br />
That internationally agreed definition of the precautionary<br />
principle was later enshrined in the Lisbon treaty and it<br />
underpins much of the work that has been done on<br />
sustainable development, including when the work of<br />
the Rio conference was built on at Rio+20 only last<br />
year in Brazil.<br />
Throughout our inquiry, DEFRA used what it identified<br />
as a lack of full scientific certainty as an excuse for<br />
inaction. For example, at one stage the Department<br />
stated that it would require unequivocal evidence of<br />
harm before acting on neonicotinoids.<br />
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con): In medical research,<br />
t<strong>here</strong> is a huge issue with drug companies not publishing<br />
inconvenient data. Does the hon. Lady feel that that is a<br />
serious problem with neonicotinoids?<br />
Joan Walley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for<br />
raising that point about commercial confidentiality and<br />
the lack of transparency. We hear a lot at the moment<br />
about lobbying and related issues, but if the agri-chemical<br />
industry wishes to make claims about the value of its<br />
products, it must open up the evidence to full scrutiny.<br />
T<strong>here</strong> is no case for hiding behind so-called “commercial<br />
confidentiality”. That prevents the open, transparent<br />
and informed policy making that is so badly needed. I<br />
agree with the hon. Lady and her point relates to one of<br />
the recommendations in our report.<br />
When the weight of peer-reviewed evidence rendered<br />
untenable DEFRA’s position on the need for unequivocal<br />
evidence, it claimed that it would commission the Food<br />
and Environment Research Agency to conduct a realistic<br />
field study to resolve the matter. That study was not<br />
peer reviewed and it was, as one witness to our inquiry<br />
presciently pointed out, clearly too small to provide<br />
conclusive results. It was undermined by fundamental<br />
errors in its execution, such as placing the various hives<br />
that were used in the experiments outside on different<br />
days of the year.