Please also see my diary from two days ago which focuses on two highly significant and disturbing new peer reviewed studies published in the journal, Nature.
The focus of this diary is the new moratoriums on the pesticides.
The accumulating evidence that a class of pesticides known as neonicotinoids are impacting bee populations is finally being noticed by governmental departments in the United Sates, which are increasingly joining in on a ban of the pesticides. And an important group of scientists of the European Academies Science Advisory Council has issued a report which concludes more ecological damage from the pesticides has occurred than previously understood (more below on this).
It may be that with the accumulated evidence, (for examples see here, here, and here), the tide is turning against the use of this controversial pesticide. But critics say the bans in many cases don't go far enough, and the loopholes (yes, of course there are loopholes -- when are there ever a lack of loopholes?) need to be closed.
EPA Puts in Effect a Partial Moratorium on New Applications
On April 2nd, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced in a letter to companies that apply the products outdoors that it will not grant new use permits to applicants for new or expanded usage of the class of insecticides known as neonicotinoids, due to mounting evidence that the chemical is negatively impacting bee populations.
Salon: At long, long long last, the Environmental Protection Agency is taking on neonicatinoids, the class of pesticides implicated in the mass die-offs of bees.
The agency announced Thursday that it will be restricting the future manufacture and use of products containing the pesticides; in letters sent to companies that apply those products outdoors, it warned that it likely won’t be approving new permits for their use until it can determine that they won’t cause “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.”
The letters, the EPA said, “reiterate that the EPA has required new bee safety studies for its ongoing registration review process for the neonicotinoid pesticides, and that the Agency must complete its new pollinator risk assessments, which are based, in part, on the new data, before it will likely be able to make regulatory decisions…that would expand the current uses of these pesticides.”
But according the NYT,
environmental groups say the measure doesn't go far enough:
[C]ritics say the E.P.A.’s interim policy is rife with loopholes, allowing continued use of existing products for approved applications, for example. They also criticized the agency for not halting the approval of some products that are chemically quite similar to neonicotinoids but classified differently for regulatory purposes.
A temporary ban on new uses “is going to have a negligible impact,” said Larissa Walker, director of a bee-protection campaign at the Center for Food Safety, an environmental advocacy group in Washington. “They really need to look at the bigger picture. They should prohibit all future registrations for all systemic pesticides.”
The Fish and Wildlife Service is also phasing out usage of neonicotinoids in protected lands of the Pacific Region, which was reported by the Center For Food Safety
as announced in a memo issued on July 9th, 2014:
The Pacific Region will begin a phased approach to eliminate the use of neonicotinoid insecticides (by any method) to grow agricultural crops for wildlife on National Wildlife Refuge System lands, effectively immediately. By January 2016, Region 1 will no longer use neonicotinoid pesticides in any agricultural activity.
The memo cites the neonicotinoid use as a contributing factor to bee declines, as well as the persistence of the pesticides in the environment, the drift into non-treated areas, and impacts on non target species:
A FWS official pointed Salon to information included with the memo, which confirms that the decline in bee populations, of which neonicotinoid use is believed to be a contributing factor, is the driving justification for the phase-out. “While the use of neonics on refuges is limited,” the memo reads, “the persistence and systemic action have the long-term potential to adversely impact refuge invertebrates, especially native bee fauna and other pollinators.”
The memo also highlights the pesticides’ persistence in the environment and their tendency to drift to non-treated areas, along with their potentially lethal impact on other non-target species, like birds and small mammals. ”The Service’s Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policy directs us to use long-standing established IPM practices and methods that pose the lowest risk to fish, wildlife, and their habitats,” it concludes. That means getting rid of the chemicals altogether — and, beginning in 2015, requiring managers to “exhaust all alternatives” to their use in the meantime.
And on April 1st of this year, the city of Portland, Oregon has banned use of the pesticide in city limits, effectively immediately by unanimous consent of the Portland City Commission. As reported by Reuters,
Portland is one of a growing number of U.S. municipalities banning the class of pesticide:
Portland brings to at least eight the number of U.S. municipalities, including Seattle and Spokane in neighboring Washington state, that have banned the chemicals amid what conservationists say is mounting evidence the insecticide is a culprit in the decline of bees and other pollinating insects.
These restrictions of the pesticide follow on the heels of the
2013 moratorium imposed by the European Union.
And just weeks ago, the influential group of scientists of the European Acadamies Science Advisory Council issued a statement which concludes ecological damage from the neonicotinoids are greater than previously understood, impacting not just honeybees but reducing populations of other pollinating insects like bumblebees, wild bees, and predatory insects which help to control pests, and they state that limiting the focus to honeybees "distorts the debate", since other negative impacts tend to be ignored. The report said widespread pesticide use “has severe effects on a range of organisms that provide ecosystem services like pollination and natural pest control, as well as on biodiversity," and that, "[i]n some cases, neonicotinoid use has even made pest problems worse by eliminating insects which provided natural pest control."
Ecosystem services, agriculture and neonicotinoids | 08.04.15
A focus on honey bees has distorted the debate around neonicotinoids. But there is more and more evidence that widespread use of neonicotinoids has severe effects on a range of organisms that provide ecosystem services like pollination and natural pest control, as well as on biodiversity.
Public and political attention has focused on whether honey bee colonies are being affected by neonicotinoids. But studying honey bee colony numbers does not show what is happening to the many other species providing the ecosystem services of pollination, natural pest control, soil productivity or the underpinning of biodiversity. Honey bees are just one pollinator - others include bumble bees, solitary bees, hoverflies, butterflies and moths. Other pollinators have generally declined across Europe as honey bee colony numbers have fluctuated.
In addition, honey bee colony structure provides a buffer against losses of foragers and workers, which is overlooked by many studies looking at the impact of neonicotinoid use on honey bee colony survival. In contrast, bumble bees have much less buffering capacity - and solitary bees none at all. Protecting honey bees is not enough to ensure sustainable agriculture.
Read more
Meanwhile a new study reveals dramatic reductions in wild bee populations from the pesticide, and another show bees become addicted to them:
The conclusions of the EU academy of science ties in nicely with the new studies published in Nature in April 2015, which is the topic of my diary last Monday.
The first study shows that wild bees like bumblebees and solitary bees were diminished by half when in proximity to Rapeseed fields treated with neonicotinoids, while the same species were not impacted in untreated fields. This is reportedly the first major study conducted in a real world context and is highly significant.
The second study, published at the same time, shows bees are drawn to blossoms of plants treated with the pesticides, indication possible addictive behavior, similar to human addictions to nicotine.
These two studies are a double whammy, showing the bees don't avoid, but are drawn to the toxic pesticide.