This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/03/pesticides-ban-editorial
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Pesticide ban: saving the buzz | |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| Environmentalists gathered in Thailand for the first Cites wildlife protection conference for three years will be worrying about the glamorous threatened species – the Sumatran rhino and the stubfoot toad. Protection of biodiversity begins closer to home. In Britain, the numbers of pollinators, which include not just honeybees but the thousands of insects that visit flowering plants, are in sharp decline. There is growing evidence that one particular group of pesticides, neonicotinoids, is damaging the viability of insect colonies that are the guarantors of food security. But an outright ban could reduce crops such as oilseed rape by up to 25%. Without restrictions, however, pollinators might decline to catastrophic levels. Food security now or food security later? | Environmentalists gathered in Thailand for the first Cites wildlife protection conference for three years will be worrying about the glamorous threatened species – the Sumatran rhino and the stubfoot toad. Protection of biodiversity begins closer to home. In Britain, the numbers of pollinators, which include not just honeybees but the thousands of insects that visit flowering plants, are in sharp decline. There is growing evidence that one particular group of pesticides, neonicotinoids, is damaging the viability of insect colonies that are the guarantors of food security. But an outright ban could reduce crops such as oilseed rape by up to 25%. Without restrictions, however, pollinators might decline to catastrophic levels. Food security now or food security later? |
| Neonicotinoids have been around for a long time. They are not widely used as a spray, but applied to seed before planting, which protects the growing plant against devastating insect-borne diseases. They offer what appears to be the perfect circle: higher yields, less pesticide use. It goes wrong at the flowering stage. The toxin is present in the nectar; the contentious point is to what extent and to what effect. | Neonicotinoids have been around for a long time. They are not widely used as a spray, but applied to seed before planting, which protects the growing plant against devastating insect-borne diseases. They offer what appears to be the perfect circle: higher yields, less pesticide use. It goes wrong at the flowering stage. The toxin is present in the nectar; the contentious point is to what extent and to what effect. |
| The manufacturers, claiming commercial confidentiality, are reluctant to share details of formula, concentration and data from regulatory trials. But Syngenta and Bayer recently assured MPs on the environmental audit committee that a ban would do more harm than good because it would mean more spraying. Their claim is that neonicotinoids, even if they are implicated, are not the biggest cause of decline in pollinator populations. They point not just to the lethal varroa mite but to the loss and quality of habitat. Independent scientists disagree. They believe that, even at low levels, the chemicals cause neurological damage to insects, undermining their resilience and leaving them less likely to breed successfully. In the interests of conservation, scientists told the same committee that neonicotinoids should be, if not banned, then at least restricted. | The manufacturers, claiming commercial confidentiality, are reluctant to share details of formula, concentration and data from regulatory trials. But Syngenta and Bayer recently assured MPs on the environmental audit committee that a ban would do more harm than good because it would mean more spraying. Their claim is that neonicotinoids, even if they are implicated, are not the biggest cause of decline in pollinator populations. They point not just to the lethal varroa mite but to the loss and quality of habitat. Independent scientists disagree. They believe that, even at low levels, the chemicals cause neurological damage to insects, undermining their resilience and leaving them less likely to breed successfully. In the interests of conservation, scientists told the same committee that neonicotinoids should be, if not banned, then at least restricted. |
| Evidence is slowly accumulating against the manufacturers. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, cautiously, has concluded it is time to ban their use on plants attractive to pollinating insects. More importantly, the European Food Safety Authority, responsible for all pesticide regulation, agrees. But the authority assesses only one aspect of risk. Later this month European commission officials adjudicate between the conflicting interests of food production and conservation. | Evidence is slowly accumulating against the manufacturers. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, cautiously, has concluded it is time to ban their use on plants attractive to pollinating insects. More importantly, the European Food Safety Authority, responsible for all pesticide regulation, agrees. But the authority assesses only one aspect of risk. Later this month European commission officials adjudicate between the conflicting interests of food production and conservation. |
| British farming and environment ministers prefer the status quo. They look like getting left behind: already some garden centres are withdrawing neonicotinoid-based pesticides. The science may not yet be conclusive. But everything suggests the long-term costs of inaction outweigh the short-term costs of a ban. | British farming and environment ministers prefer the status quo. They look like getting left behind: already some garden centres are withdrawing neonicotinoid-based pesticides. The science may not yet be conclusive. But everything suggests the long-term costs of inaction outweigh the short-term costs of a ban. |