Bee warned

A growing volume of evidence suggests that neonicotinoid insecticides are a major factor behind the decline in the number of honey bees and other pollinators, yet the European commission sidesteps demands to suspend their use. Its failure to pay heed to the precautionary principle betrays its commitment to protect biodiversity and could prove a costly mistake.

The decline in the honey bee population across Europe is acknowledged by the commission. But while the EU's 700,000 beekeepers harvest some 200,000 tonnes of honey each year, their honey bees are responsible for less than 10 per cent of pollination. Of even greater concern should be the situation of wild bees. Little is known for certain but such evidence as exists suggests that their survival rates are no better. As the economic value to Europe of insect pollinated crops is about €15bn annually we should be doing more to find out.

Bees face threats from disease and parasites. They are affected by agricultural changes and different weather conditions. They can be vulnerable to the effects of pesticides even when they are not the intended target. The commission adopted a communication on honey bee health last December. It’s a well intentioned document that explains what has been done, what issues are being explored, and what might be done, but it singularly fails to address the issue now most commonly raised by scientists and environmentalists.

Neonicotinoids are a set of neurotoxin insecticides that mimic the insect-killing properties of nicotine. Intended both for seed dressing and as soil treatments they are used widely. One product, for example, Imidacloprid, was Bayer's top selling insecticide in 2009, earning the company more than €400m. They do not target bees but are absorbed through pollen and nectar. Evidence from the US department of agriculture, from the French national institute for agricultural research, and from independent studies documented in the 2009 report published by Buglife, the UK's invertebrate conservation trust, suggests that even in minute traces the pesticides increase the vulnerability of pollinators.

Pesticides that hurt bees can be banned. Products can only gain EU approval under the pesticides regulation if their use has no unacceptable effect on bee health. But what amounts to "unacceptable"? The commission is currently revising the data requirements for the submission of pesticide dossiers to enhance the protection of honey bees. That’s good, but in the meantime bees are dying. Why is the commission not applying the precautionary principle and suspending or restricting the use of neonicotinoids?

It can be invoked only on the basis of scientific evidence and the commission claims that no "direct causal link between the increased bee mortalities and specific substances or agents has been established." But no-one claims that neonicotinoids are killing bees directly, the concern is that their use weakens them and lowers their resistance. It’s akin to someone with Aids dying of pneumonia. The case against neonicotinoids is not conclusive, but then it doesn’t have to be. Use of the pesticides has been authorised on the basis of laboratory experiments and very limited field trials.

None of the evidence provided by manufacturers addresses the arguments now being voiced by scientific critics. Reverse the burden of proof and the manufacturers’ defence falls away. The commission should act.