Pesticide trials – Letters –

Pesticide trials

If EMOTION were the basis of policy, the pesticides neonicotinoids, a class of neuro-active insecticides chemically related to nicotine, would have been banned by now (your report, 6 April). However, established scientific evidence not emotion is the only way to construct meaningful regulations about pesticide use.


Bees are under pressure from loss of habitat and disease but the link between bee declines and neonicotinoids is far from clear.

Graham White, spokesman for the UK charity Friends of the Bees, cites a long list of organisations that supposedly want to ban these pesticides but the 2.5 million-signature petition to the European Union he quoted was to save bees from extinction which is absurd, as is his implication that the pesticides will eliminate bees, birds and butterflies.

Environmental groups live on campaigns because without them they disappear and unfortunately lies and exaggeration abound. And looking at the list Mr White provides, I find it difficult to see the scientific expertise in most of them that would enable a balanced assessment of the evidence.

Instead they seem to follow the original cheerleader that set the electronic campaign going and thus have to follow suit to establish their environmental credentials. Routinely the financial costs to all of us and agriculture, of what they want, are ignored. The most competent group on Mr White’s list, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), only assesses risk – I am not aware it has asked to ban anything.

Neonicotinoids, once applied, are absorbed and act systemically. Pests that eat crop plants and particularly those like the highly-damaging aphids, are killed. No doubt improvements in pesticide application that reduce the risk to bees could be made and my understanding is that these are presently in progress.

Blanket bans deter investment in improvement but how many groups that ask for them understand that bees are not attracted to wheat and that there is no basis for preventing its use on this primary crop. Proper field trials would sort the issue for other crops.

(Prof) Tony Trewavas

Scientific Alliance Scotland

North St David Street


via Pesticide trials – Letters –

2 comments on “Pesticide trials – Letters –

  1. WILLIAM H. GATHERCOLE AND NORAH G April 10, 2013 9:08 pm

    RESEARCHERS HAVE NOT IDENTIFIED A SINGLE CAUSE OF OVER-WINTERING HONEY BEE LOSSES.  Moreover, RESEARCHERS HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY A SINGLE CAUSE OF BEE COLONY COLLAPSE DISORDER.  Under normal field use, THE EXPOSURE TO BEES IS AT VERY LOW LEVELS, FAR TOO LOW TO CAUSE HARMFUL EFFECTS.  There is NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST A LINK between NEONICOTINOID INSECTICIDES and long-term honey bee losses.  The weight of the scientific evidence clearly shows that neonicotinoid insecticides DO NOT AFFECT LONG-TERM COLONY HEALTH.  Most experts agree that, in recent years, honey bee decline is the result of a COMBINATION OF FACTORS, including parasitic mites and diseases.  Recent scientific research points toward a combination of PARASITIC MITES ( specifically the Varroa mite ) and PATHOGENS ( such as Nosema and viral diseases ) as MAIN FACTORS.  Although some neonicotinoid insecticides are toxic to bees upon direct contact ( as are many insecticides ), they are used in a way that MINIMIZES ANY DIRECT EXPOSURE TO BEES, such as SEED TREATMENT.  SEED TREATMENT INSECTICIDES have been used for a decade WITH ALMOST NO INCIDENCES OF NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON BEES by MINIMIZING POTENTIAL EXPOSURES of non-target insects such as bees.  Independent, long-term, controlled field tests have repeatedly shown NO EFFECTS on bee mortality, weight gain, worker longevity, brood development, honey yield, and over-winter survival relative to bees in areas where TREATED SEED was not used.  The AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY HAS A VESTED INTEREST IN PROTECTING honey bees and is committed to thoroughly researching and protecting bee health.


    NORAHG has archived information on The Pesticide Truths Web-Site  …







Comments are closed.