here - United Kingdom Parliament

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