For some reason, or perhaps not, safe and effective
modern pesticides of the “neonicotinoid” class (“neonics”) have had a target
painted on them by anti-chemical activists based in Europe, for about a decade
now. Ironically, these chemicals were developed in response to (baseless, but
politically potent) claims of adverse health effects of older classes of
pesticides. And, indeed, the neonics became very popular among farmers for
their safety and efficacy against common pests.
Then, beginning around 2009, a campaign focused on their
alleged harms to honeybee populations began to gain activist, media and popular
attention (but having no direct impact upon their actual users: beekeepers and
farmers, until the regulatory axe swung). This led to EU restrictions on
several of the most commonly used chemicals, thanks to the precautionary
principle, which (in the presence of mere “concern” or “suspicion” of harmful
effects) requires proof of safety, an impossible task. These restrictions
remain in effect — even though the evidence clearly shows that bee colony
populations suffer from episodic “collapse” with dramatic decrements in number
of bees every few years, followed predictably by a resurgence: none of it
having anything to do with the application of neonics. (The makers of neonics,
Syngenta and Bayer CropScience, are suing the EU Commission to remove the ban
as being unsupported by science).
Seeing the loss of this issue, the same bunch of
anti-pesticide crusaders seem to have convinced an organization called the
European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC) that neonics’ threat
extends beyond their alleged bee effects, but adversely impact “sustainability”
and “biodiversity.” An article in today’s
New York Times (“Pesticides Linked to Honeybee Deaths Pose More Risks,
European Group Says”) attempts to gin up fears about these chemicals by
completely ignoring the facts exonerating neonics from “bee colony collapse
disorder”:
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.
“Believed” by chemophobic activists, and the New York
Times, apparently. The EU ban is up for review this year, and our EPA is also
re-reviewing its license for these chemicals. The EASAC report was prepared to
provide EU officials with their recommendations for how to proceed. Here is an
example of their rigorous studies:
“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 Times article paraphrases thusly: 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. They said
a farming approach known as integrated pest management, which takes a more natural
approach to insect control, would allow for a sharp decrease in their use.
ACSH’s Dr. Gil Ross had this comment: “This is another
classic example of twisting the facts towards attaining a pre-ordained
conclusion (note their recommendation for ‘natural’ pest control methods to
replace chemicals. Brilliant). In this instance, this so-called science council
clearly decided, who knows when, that neonics had to go, and they likely
targeted their ostensible effects on those poor bees. However, when the data failed
to support bee harm, they did a tricky shift worthy of Steph Curry on the
court, now condemning neonics for vague greeniac issues instead, hoping that
their fellow-chemophobes on the EU Commission will take the bait. And, sadly, I
wouldn’t be a bit surprised. Too bad for EU agriculture.”
No comments:
Post a Comment