An op-ed in the Wall St. Journal by Owen Paterson, U.K. Secretary of
State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs from 2012 until 2014 and Member
Parliament (MP) since 1997, tries to bring scientific perspective to the
ideological, precautionary-principle based ban on the safe and useful class of
modern pesticides, neonicotinoids (“neonics”).
Paterson points out
that the data seeming to incriminate neonics as a factor in the alleged decline
in bee colonies was itself highly unreliable. In fact, bee colonies are
thriving and were when neonics were commonly used. But several important
agricultural crops are suffering serious declines due to resurgent pest
infestations, thanks to the loss of neonics.
The ban was
instituted at the behest of anti-science NGOs and their millions of adherents —
people who had little familiarity with science or farming or farmers. Rt Hon
Owen Paterson MP, writes, the 2013 ban “was based on faulty science and
pressure exerted by environmental lobbyists…caused a widespread deterioration
in crops across the U.K. and Europe. Now that the ban is set to expire in
November, the EU has a chance to correct its mistake before any more damage is
done.”
“If neonics are
banned, then we will have to revert back to the much more savage pyrethroid
sprays, which have been proven to do so much more harm to bees—and all other
insects,” says Viv Marsh, a horticulturalist working on biodiversity
conservation in my North Shropshire constituency.
 |
| What canola fields really look like without neonics: Left has not been treated, while the right has. Credit: Gregory Sekulic, Canola Council of Canada Agronomy Specialist |
The anti-neonic hysteria drummed up by anti-science
groups is but one example of how science, economics and simple common sense are
all too often sacrificed to the mob mentality easily harnessed by so-called
“environmental” groups. Merely a claim of some adverse effect on vulnerable
species can be an inspiration for some activist crusade, based on nothing more
than fear-mongering and the compliance of green-leaning precautionary EU
regulators and bureaucrats. The campaign against neonics is another example:
there are many others.
As MP Paterson concludes: “The ban is an indictment of
Europe’s ‘precautionary principle’—Brussels’s trump card for implementing
regulations without proof that it is necessary or beneficial. In this case, it
was supposed to be an opportunity for the European Commission to examine the
facts and determine whether continuing the ban after the initial two-year
period was warranted. Now that the facts and the science are in, rarely has a
supposed environmental hazard been so completely debunked.
“If the Commission does the right thing and allows the
two-year ban to expire, it would be a huge relief to farmers trying to save
their crops and conservationists trying to save the bees. Just as important, it
would be a repudiation of the scare mongering employed by environmentalists and
an indication that maybe, at long last, Brussels will start putting facts,
science and common sense back into the process of regulatory decision making.”
I would be content with a reversal of the neonic ban.
To imagine that this lesson will be emblazoned in the EU’s regulatory schema
and be used to counter future such unscientific, counterproductive edicts is
merely wishful thinking, I fear.
“The Bees Are Safe—Now Lift This Pesticide Ban” demands
Paterson. EU’s farmers and the scientific world couldn’t agree more.
No comments:
Post a Comment