Neonicotinoids and other Pesticides

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Henderson. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon) for securing the debate. Her introduction was full and thorough, and I will echo many of her points. I am also grateful for the other speakers. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has left us. I have long wondered what he was on to keep him going, and now we know the answer: two spoonfuls of honey on a piece of toast in the morning. We will all have to try that.

I was particularly taken with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). His passion for bees is legendary and he raised a series of important points, many of which I will touch on. I thought that the exchange between him and the Minister on the threshold issue was illuminating. I fear that, because of the weather this year, we are likely to cross that threshold again, so in reality we are talking about a derogation that will be applied this year. He made a point about flea treatment for pets, and I think that issue will rise and rise in salience. It is clearly a significant problem.

The key point is that we are here again—for the fourth time. It is almost an annual debate—the annual neonicotinoids debate. It really is a case of déjà vu. We are also still waiting for the national action plan on pesticides. I have had this brief for four and a half years now, and Josie Cohen and others from the Pesticide Action Network have been pressing me on this point all the way through. I have lost count of the number of changes in terminology so, if the Minister cannot give us a date, perhaps he could tell us whether it is soon, imminent or in due course, or maybe, just possibly, after the election—who knows?

There is a serious point here: why on earth has it taken so long to deal with these issues, which have already been raised? Why can’t we find a way forward? How many times is it that the Government have ridden roughshod over expert opinion by allowing yet another emergency authorisation for the use of Cruiser SB? We have already heard the answer; it is four times. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said, that hardly constitutes an emergency because, once again, the Government have ignored the advice of Government scientific advisers on the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides. Back in September, it said that it was unable to support an authorisation for Cruiser SB because

“the potential adverse effects to honeybees and other pollinators…outweighs any likely benefits.”

It is right. We simply cannot afford to allow further devastation to the number of bees in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport has already quoted the statistics: one third of the UK bee population has disappeared in the last decade. Since 1900, 13 of 35 native bee species have been lost. There has been a dramatic decline in the number of all pollinators, which has fallen by over 50% between 1985 and 2005.

This is a fundamental threat to the survival of a much-loved part of our natural world—a threat that we should challenge not only for its own sake, but because the economic consequences are severe. Quite frankly, we would struggle to survive without bees. They are crucial to our physical health and the health of the wider environment. In the UK alone, approximately 75% of our crop species require pollination and around 70 crops depend on, or benefit from, bee pollination. Though there are of course other methods of pollination, wild bees can pollinate on a much bigger and more efficient scale than the alternatives.

The economic benefits are estimated to be worth approximately £690 million to the UK economy in terms of the value of the crops they pollinate. From a global perspective, bees pollinate 70 out of the top 100 foods we eat and an astonishing one third of every mouthful of food we consume. They are also essential for the crops used for animal feed. Without them, it would be harder to produce much of our meat, egg and dairy products. I am told that in China they have had to resort to pollinating fruit trees by hand because pollinators have been nearly wiped out by pesticide use. That should serve as a warning to us. Estimates suggest that it would cost UK farmers an incredible £1.8 billion a year to manually pollinate their crops. Without bees, it would not be long before our ecosystem was in severe trouble.

Not only are bees in more danger every year, but they are more important every year. According to the UN, the volume of agricultural production dependent on pollinators has increased globally by 300% in the past 50 years. The UN also found that greater pollinator density results in better crop yields, so it is also good for farmers.

These pesticides are not only toxic for bees; at certain levels, they are toxic to aquatic life and build up in river systems. Research by the Rivers Trust and Wildlife and Countryside Link found neonicotinoids in more than one in 10 English river sites tested by the Environment Agency. The levels of neonicotinoids in many of our rivers was above the environmental quality standard deemed safe for aquatic wildlife. The rivers most affected by the pesticides were found in the east of England, south-east England and west midlands, including the Ivel, Waveney, Nene, Ouse and Tame. The evidence is pretty clear. It is no surprise that other countries are heeding the advice of their experts on banning these pesticides.

A European High Court ruling last year found that no derogation concerning seeds treated with neonicotinoids was justified, including in exceptional circumstances invoked to protect sugar beet. The French Government announced on 24 January 2023 that they had decided not to pursue a further exemption for neonicotinoid use on sugar beet, in the light of the court ruling, effectively putting an end to the emergency use in Europe of three banned substances—imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam. We are going in the opposite direction from scientific and legal consensus in comparable countries.

I recognise the problems that growers face in combating diseases transmitted by aphids. I am an east of England Member of Parliament and I absolutely understand the importance of the sugar beet industry to our region. Virus yellows, in particular, causes significant yield losses. The National Farmers Union, as has been said, reports that for some that can be up to 50%, and I thank the NFU for its background briefing. The most complex and serious example is that spread by the peach potato aphid, and it is hard to control. In 2020, the sector lost 40% of the national sugar beet crop, bringing down the five-year average yield by 25%.

I was grateful to the NFU and British Sugar a few months ago; I met their representatives and some from the British Beet Research Organisation in Rougham near Bury St Edmunds. We stood in a field and looked very closely at the impact of the disease on a variety of sugar beet plants. That was an informative and chastening experience, because one could see the damage being done to those plants. I fully appreciate the challenge that farmers face. I also think that most farmers know that the use of this chemical will not be a long-term solution. In 2023, 40% of sugar beet farmers in England chose not to use them, despite the authorisation allowing their use. That is up from 29% in 2022.

To go back to earlier discussions, many have been able to successfully deploy integrated pest management systems. There was an interesting piece in Farmers Weekly a few weeks ago detailing the recommendations being made by BBRO, including a move to more tolerant varieties. That is part of the issue—it is an economic one. The problem is that, in moving to some of those more tolerant varieties, there is a yield penalty, a financial calculation. What that tells us is that there are choices, and that it can be done. The question is whether we choose to do so.

My view is that the future will be different, and I think that is why so many people are exasperated and genuinely shocked by the Government’s continuing stance. The reaction to the Government’s latest decision to authorise the use of Cruiser SB has been damning. The Wildlife Trusts called it a

“deathblow for wildlife, a backwards step in evidence-based decision making and a betrayal of farmers who are producing food sustainably.”

The chief executive officer of Wildlife and Countryside Link said the decision

“flies in the face of ecological sense”.

It is not just environmental and wildlife groups who are outraged. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport has already referenced the campaigning work of Anabel Kindersley, chief executive of Neal’s Yard Remedies, who helped to establish the “Save the Bees” campaign with a number of businesses that have repeatedly called for an end to the use of bee-killing pesticides. That is partly because they see the threat to bees as a threat to their businesses. In the modern world, that is the challenge: not just to produce food, but to do so in an environmentally sustainable, nature-positive way. I acknowledge that that is hard, and we may need new tools to help us, but change has to come, and it should start now with an end to the use of these toxic chemicals in our fields.

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Henderson. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a farmer, although we do not and have never produced sugar beet at home. I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this interesting debate. We agree on more than we disagree on, including the necessity to find a way forward, to which I wholly subscribe.

Decisions to allow or not to allow the use of pesticides are based on careful scientific assessment of the risks. The aim is to achieve a high level of protection for people, animals and the environment while improving agricultural production. The decision to grant the emergency authorisation of Cruiser SB was not taken lightly and was based on robust assessment of the environmental and economic risks and benefits.

The emergency authorisation was issued with a strict threshold for use. The seed treatment was authorised to be used if—and only if—a virus incidence rate of 65% or more over the summer months was forecast by the independent model developed by Rothamsted Research. That forecast was made on Friday 1 March.

The use of Cruiser SB on sugar beet in England will be allowed this year as yellows virus incidence thresholds, as predicted by the Rothamsted model, has been met. Emerging sugar beet seedlings and young plants are vulnerable to feeding by aphids, which transmit several viruses collectively known as virus yellows. These viruses lead to reduced beet size, lower sugar content and higher impurities.

We withdrew authorisation for the use of pesticide products containing three neonicotinoids on outdoor crops at the end of 2018. Since then, sugar beet growers have been adjusting to the new conditions. In 2020, there was severe damage, with 24% of the national crop being lost, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), recognised. Many individual growers were severely affected and less sugar beet was planted in 2021, because some growers were reluctant to take the economic risk. In recent years, the virus threat has been relatively low.

This year, the threshold has been set at a predicted virus incidence of 65% or above. That is a slight increase from last year’s threshold. The change reflects our improving understanding of the fit between the model used to predict virus incidence and the real-world outcomes. The aim of the threshold is to ensure that Cruiser is used only if damage is predicted to sugar beet production.

Members will be aware of the strict conditions of use that have also been set as a requirement of the emergency authorisation. As the threshold has been met and neonicotinoid-treated seeds will be planted, those conditions are in place to mitigate risks to the environment, including risks to pollinators. Neonicotinoids take time to break down in the environment, and during that period, may be taken up by flowering plants. The conditions for use of Cruiser SB therefore allow only a limited range of crops, none of which flowers before harvest, to be planted in the same field within 32 months of a treated sugar beet crop.

Growers must also comply with a stewardship scheme. As part of that scheme, treated fields are monitored to determine the levels of neonicotinoids in the environment. Full details of the conditions of use have been published online.

To be clear, we remain committed to the existing restrictions on neonicotinoids. Emergency authorisations are approved only where strict legal requirements are met. There must be special circumstances. Use must be limited and controlled, and the authorisation must appear necessary because of a danger that cannot be contained by any other reasonable means.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I wonder whether we could turn the question round. What would need to happen for the Minister not to grant a derogation? I cannot really see circumstances in which this situation is likely to change.

[Mark Spencer]

There are circumstances where it is likely to change. There are advancements in other products that are coming forward in the marketplace. The gene editing Act offers opportunities for research institutes to find alternative genetic possibilities to help improve resistance within the sugar beet plants to some of these pests and diseases. In those circumstances, as those new technologies come forward, of course they will be assessed on their merits. We are very keen to support the development of alternatives to try to help sugar beet producers and the environment at the same time.

[Daniel Zeichner]

rose—

[Luke Pollard]

rose—

[Mark Spencer]

I give way to the shadow Minister.

[Daniel Zeichner]

As I said in my speech, it is not that tolerant varieties or alternatives are not already available; it is that there is an economic cost. I do not really see how that is different from the situation the Minister has described. They will not necessarily provide the same level of yield, even with the gene editing. There will still be a cost.

[Mark Spencer]

Let me give way to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, and then I will take both points at the same time.