An influential European scientific body said on Wednesday that a group of pesticides believed to contribute to mass deaths of honeybees is probably more damaging to ecosystems than previously thought and questioned whether the substances had a place in sustainable agriculture. The finding could have repercussions on both sides of the Atlantic for the companies that produce the chemicals, which are known as neonicotinoids because of their chemical similarity to nicotine. Global sales of the chemicals reach into the billions of dollars. Research has been directed largely at the effects of neonicotinoids on honeybees, but that focus “has distorted the debate,” according to the report released on Wednesday by the European Academies Science Advisory Council. The council is an independent body composed of representatives from the national science academies of European Union member states. The European ban is up for review this year, and the council’s report, based on the examination of more than 100 peer-reviewed papers that were published since the food safety agency’s finding, was prepared to provide officials with recommendations on how to proceed.
A growing body of evidence shows that the widespread use of the pesticides “has severe effects on a range of organisms that provide ecosystem services like pollination and natural pest control, as well as on biodiversity,” the report’s authors said.
Predatory insects like parasitic wasps and ladybugs provide billions of dollars’ worth of insect control, they noted, and organisms like earthworms contribute billions more through improved soil productivity. All are harmed by the pesticides.
Source: New York Times, April 8, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/09/business/energy-environment/pesticide…
- Log in to post comments
CPA response to EASAC study on neonicotinoids
Nick von Westenholz, CEO of the Crop Protection Association said;
“This is not new research but rather a very selective reading of some of the literature, especially from organisations well known for their opposition to neonicotinoids. In particular, it rather worryingly relies heavily on the recent series of papers from the Task Force on Systemic Pesticides, which have been shown to be part of a deliberate anti-neonicotinoid campaign. The EASAC review also reflects a bias of the anti-neonicotinoid campaign toward highly theoretical laboratory tests rather than fully considering published field studies and other independent research which proves the safety of these pesticides. EASAC has an important responsibility to provide independent science advice to European policy-makers, but sadly this report which falls well below the standard expected of scientific academies.”
“It is a shame that the debate around the use of these important pesticides appears to be increasingly politicised, with anti-pesticide activists consistently promoting their agenda under the auspices of independent research. Meanwhile, the only effect of the restriction on neonicotinoids in Europe so far has been a steady stream of reports from farmers that their crops are suffering serious losses.”
Source: CPA, 9 April 2015
http://www.cropprotection.org.uk/news/posts/2015/april/cpa-response-to-…
Correspondence with EASAC's Chair Professor Peter Neumann
Dear Dr. Neumann,
Thank you for your prompt reply.
In my opinion, the EASAC report should certainly have referred to my book, for two reasons:
1. The central thesis of the EASAC report, I.e., that infinitesimal concentrations of neonics will decimate non-target insects and insectivores, was proven in my book
2. I was the first scientist and author to raise the issue
Furthermore, I take exception to your derogation of my ground-breaking work, of which I am very proud.
Best regards
Henk Tennekes
Van: peter.neumann@vetsuisse.unibe.ch [mailto:peter.neumann@vetsuisse.unibe.ch]
Verzonden: zondag 12 april 2015 14:04
Aan: info@toxicology.nl
CC: Frank.Berendse@wur.nl
Onderwerp: RE: EASAC report on neonicotinoids
Dear Dr. Tennekes
Thank you for your mail.
Since 2012, >4700 peer-reviewed articles have been published on this matter. As you will understand, we were therefore unfortunately not able to consider each and every reference.
Yours sincerely
Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Peter Neumann
Foundation Vinetum-Professor of Bee Health (http://www.vinetum.ch)
President COLOSS association (prevention of honeybee Colony LOSSes, http://www.coloss.org/)
Institute of Bee Health (http://www.bees.unibe.ch)
Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern
Bremgartenstr. 109a, CH-3001 Bern, Switzerland
peter.neumann@vetsuisse.unibe.ch
Tel: +41 (0)31 631 23 27
Fax: +41 (0)31 631 26 40
Agroscope
Schwarzenburgstrasse 161, CH-3003 Bern, Switzerland
Tel: +41 (0)31 631 57 67
Fax: +41 (0)31 323 6823
From: ETS Nederland BV [mailto:info@toxicology.nl]
Sent: Sonntag, 12. April 2015 12:39
To: Neumann, Peter (VETSUISSE)
Cc: Frank.Berendse@wur.nl
Subject: EASAC report on neonicotinoids
Dear Professor Neumann,
I am both pleased and disappointed with the EASAC report. I am pleased in the sense that the immense threat of neonics to ecosystem services has now clearly been recognized by the top experts of European life sciences and ecology. I am disappointed in the sense that no reference was made to my book “Disaster in the Making” (attached) which conveyed essentially the same message, for the first time, in 2010. It is good scientific practice to cite original sources, and this should have been a matter of course at your level of scientific endeavour.
Best regards
Dr. H. A. (Henk) Tennekes
Consultant in Toxicology
Experimental Toxicology Services (ETS) Nederland BV
Frankensteeg 4
7201KN Zutphen, The Netherlands
www.toxicology.nl
www.disasterinthemaking.com
www.farmlandbirds.net
Phone +31 (0)575 547717
Mobile +31 (0)6 28161078
Dr Anton Safer notes missing references to Tennekes publications
Neonikotinoide schaden allen Insekten, und auch dem Bodenleben sowie der Biodiversität, das geht aus einem Papier hervor, das die European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC), eine Expertengruppe von 13 Wissenschaftlern, zusammen gestellt hat. Vieles ist zwar nicht neu, aber das Papier fasst m.E. doch recht gut den Stand der wissenschaflichen Erkenntnisse zum Thema der Auswirkungen neonicotinoider Pestizide auf Bestäuber (Honigbiene, wilde Bienen, Hummeln, Solitärbienen, Motten und Schmetterlinge) und Biodiversität zusammen.
Die Expertengruppe kritisiert u.A. die unzureichende toxikologische Charakterisierung der Pestizide im PSM-Zulassungsverfahren, v.a. die fehlende Bewertung der subakuten, subchronischen Toxizität, sowie die Nichtberücksichtigung der kumulativen Toxizität, auf die Henk Tennekes schon vor vielen Jahren hingewiesen hatte. Allerdings ist das Papier unkorrekt, indem dessen Arbeiten namentlich nicht zitiert werden. Dafür wird die inkorrekte Arbeit von DeBiMo (Genersch et al. 2010) unkritisch zitiert, die ja keinen Zusammenhang der Winterverluste mit Pestiziden gefunden haben will. Aber wenigstens sind die wichtigsten experimentellen und Feldbeobachtungs-Arbeiten zusammen getragen und zitiert, die sich mit den Zusammenhängen und dem Zusammenwirken von Pestiziden, Schädlingen (Varroa), Pilzen und Viren sowie der Ernährungssituation befassen. Betrachtet werden nicht nur die Winterverluste, sondern auch Sommerverluste/CCD.
Der Verdienst dieses Beitrags besteht in der sorgfältigen Diskussion und Würdigung der komplexen Wechselwirkungen. Auch klassisch-epidemiologische Betrachtungsweisen werden herangezogen, wie der Zusammenhang zwischen Infektionshäufung und Nutzung der Neonicotinoide: "Looking at broader ecosystem impacts, Mason et al. (2013) examined trends in outbreaks of infectious diseases in honey bees, fish, amphibians, bats and birds in the past two decades and pointed to a coincidence between outbreaks and increasing use of systemic insecticides, notably the neonicotinoids and fipronil." (Seite 47).
Der Bericht befasst sich neben den Bienen und Bestäuber-Insekten auch mit den Schäden, die Neonikotinoide an den Nützlingen anrichten, an Wassertieren, Bodenlebewesen und Vögeln. Er kommt dabei zum Schluss, dass massive Effekte und Beeinträchtigungen auch bei bestimmungsmäßigem Gebrauch nachgewiesen oder zumindest wahrscheinlich seien. Der Bericht zeigt sehr deutlich auf, dass insbesondere die Neonikotinoide in keiner Weise zuträglich sind, und weder mit den Prinzipien nachhaltiger Landwirtschaft vereinbar, noch mit Natur- Umwelt- und Artenschutz.
Dieser Bericht ist aus meiner Sicht eine große Hilfe für die Vertreter der Bienenverbände im EU-Verfahren, das BASF, Bayer und Syngenta zur Aufhebung der Anwendungsbeschränkungen bei Fipronil und den Neonikotinoiden führen, Auch wenn im Einzelnen nicht perfekt, dürfte es den Chemieriesen sehr viel schwerer werden, ihre Position durchzusetzen.
Dr. Anton Safer
Institute of Public Health, Heidelberg university
Vital ecosystem services of insects are threatened by neonics
The term "endangered species" is usually associated with emblematic animals (e.g., tigers, pandas, whales), however the vast majority of species on the verge of extinction is insects. Of the 1,255 insects evaluated, roughly 600 species are at risk of extinction worldwide (IUCN 2007). In the United States, 48 insects are listed as endangered and threatened by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Insects provide a wide range of benefits to humanity. Most of our crops are dependent on pollination by honey bees and other insects. Even the production of meat and milk depend on pollinated plants that are eaten by domestic animals.
Honey bees produce honey (more than 1 million tons produced every year) and beeswax. The larva of the silkworm moth secrets silk from its salivary glands. The annual value of raw silk is estimated at about $ 1.4 billion. Certain insects are used for biological control in agriculture.
Insects perform a vast number of vital functions in our ecosystems. They provide foods for many birds, mammals, and fishes on which fishing and hunting depends. They also decompose dead materials, thereby reintroducing nutrients into the soil. Burrowing bugs such as ants and beetles dig tunnels that provide channels for water, benefiting plants.
Insects can be effective as predators to control pests for agriculture. For example, the beetle (Rodolia cardinalis) is used to control the Cottony-Cushion Scale (Icerya purchase) from sucking the branches and bark of many fruit trees.
In many parts of the world, people use insects as a major source of food including protein. For example, in Mexico grasshoppers and other insects are sold in village markets and are fried before being eaten. By weight, termites, grasshoppers, caterpillars, weevils, and house flies are better sources of protein than beef, chicken, pork or lamb. Further, insects are low in cholesterol and fat.
Source:
Endangered Species International
http://www.endangeredspeciesinternational.org/insects4.html
EASAC report does not acknowledge Tennekes book of 2010
The EASAC report is a re-statement of the message conveyed in 2010 by Dutch toxicologist Dr. Henk Tennekes in his book "The Systemic Insecticides: A Disaster in the Making", but does not acknowledge this original source of knowledge although at least one the authors, Dr. Frank Berendse of Wageningen University, was well aware of Tennekes' ground-breaking work. It follows a similar incident in 2014 when ecologists led by Hans de Kroon of the Radboud University Nijmegen reported a correlation between surface water contamination with imidacloprid and the decline of insectivorous birds in Nature, but made no reference to the book that had inspired them. These omissions are a violation of generally acccepted principles of scientific conduct and Henk Tennekes regards the omissions as blatant examples of plagiarism. However, Dutch law does not regard plagiarism as an offence that can be prosecuted.
PT Jenkins of Center for Food Safety criticizes EASAC plagiarism
Henk, this came around. I totally agree that new EU report is largely a re-statement of what you have said for years. They should have acknowledged you. Thank you so much for your foresight.
Regards,
Peter T. Jenkins, Attorney/consultant
Center for Food Safety
660 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20003
Tel: 202.547.9359
Email: pjenkins@centerforfoodsafety.org
'
Subject: EASAC report on neonicotinoids
Dear Professor Neumann,
I am both pleased and disappointed with the EASAC report.
I am pleased in the sense that the immense threat of neonics to ecosystem services has now clearly been recognized by the top experts of European life sciences and ecology.
I am disappointed in the sense that no reference was made to my book “The Systemic Pesticides - Disaster in the Making” (attached), which conveyed essentially the same message, for the first time, in 2010.
It is good scientific practice to cite original sources, and this should have been a matter of course at your level of scientific endeavour.
Best regards
Dr. H. A. (Henk) Tennekes
Consultant in Toxicology