(Image: Andrzej Krauze)
AMID growing evidence that neonicotinoid pesticides harm bees, in 2013 the European Commission announced a moratorium on their use on crops that attract these insects.
Advertisement
The UK was in the minority of countries voting against. Perhaps the government was swayed by glossy reports funded by the agrochemical industry, declaring that the ban would slash crop yields and cause huge job losses.
One such states that if the moratorium went ahead, in five years the European Union could lose at least 鈧�17 billion, 50,000 jobs could go, and 鈥渕ore than a million people engaged in arable production鈥� would certainly suffer鈥�.
We can start to evaluate this claim now that we are in the second year of the moratorium 鈥� keenly watched by the US, which has so far resisted calls for a ban.
Crops sown in spring 2014, mainly sunflower and maize, were the first not to have the pesticides applied. Across the EU, their yields were , in some regions more than 25 per cent higher. So the predicted devastation starts to look like hot air, although we shouldn鈥檛 base too much on one year鈥檚 data.
Debate in the UK has focused on oilseed rape. Here it is mainly autumn-sown, so the first neonicotinoid-free crop wasn鈥檛 in the ground until August 2014, and is being harvested now. However, the UK鈥檚 National Farmers Union (NFU), which opposes the ban, pointed to Sweden and said that up to 70 per cent of spring-sown oilseed there had been wiped out by pests. As it turned out, it was down 5 per cent overall.
The NFU also highlighted claims that on some UK farms up to half of the autumn crop was being lost to flea beetles. show that overall 3.5 per cent of the sown area was lost. But remember that some crops are lost every year, even with neonicotinoids.
Although the final yields are not yet available, for this crop are promising across Europe. In the UK, are also good and .
In highlighting losses, the NFU was attempting to garner support for an application to allow UK farmers to ignore the ban. This has now been approved for a limited part of southern England, despite a 400,000-signature petition opposing it. So why was it approved? Getting an answer is hard. The NFU鈥檚 case is on the grounds that it is 鈥渃ommercially sensitive鈥�.
That means we cannot see why environment secretary Liz Truss decided some farmers could again use chemicals that the European Food Safety Authority says .
This article appeared in print under the headline 鈥淪owing confusion鈥�
