(C) Common Dreams
This story was originally published by Common Dreams and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
The UK Expert Committee on Pesticides (ECP) advice 2023: use of ‘Cruiser SB’ on sugar beet [1]
[]
Date: 2023-01
The government has received an application for an emergency authorisation for the use of ‘Cruiser SB’ (containing thiamethoxam) for use as a seed treatment on sugar beet.
The Committee is requested to consider newly presented information and advise on:
whether there are any additional restrictions or monitoring which could be practically implemented to mitigate any unacceptable risks identified or inform any future application
whether there are any agronomic factors (for example, market conditions, availability or unavailability of alternatives), which might influence the case or need as part of the decision-making process
how this impacts the previous ECP advice regarding the risk to bees, including pollinator behaviour, if ‘Cruiser SB’ were to be used in 2023
The Committee noted that:
There are different risks associated with using neonicotinoid seed treatments and foliar sprays containing other active substances to control pests in sugar beet crops. Currently authorised foliar spray products have passed all the relevant risk assessments and thus are an acceptable alternative, at least in principle.
Surface water monitoring from catchment sensitive farming sites shows higher concentrations of clothianidin than thiamethoxam when ‘Cruiser SB’ has been used. However, as expected, overall, the concentration levels are much lower than was the case when because the fraction of the monitored catchments receiving these products is likely to be lower now than in the past.
In light of the risk assessment conducted, a reduction in survival of honey bees and impacts on homing flight ability (which also influences survival of foragers) could occur following use ‘Cruiser SB’ on sugar beet.
The new chronic honey-bee toxicity study for thiamethoxam has enabled risks to honey bees foraging in adjacent crops and field margins, to be demonstrated as low. The predicted exposure levels for honey bees foraging in crops grown in fields where sugar beet seeds were previously drilled (the succeeding crop scenario), are similar to levels where mortality was observed in toxicity studies.
The risks to birds from consuming treated seeds had not been demonstrated to be acceptable. However, consumption of pelleted seeds is considered an unlikely route of exposure.
The Committee agreed with the Health and Safety Executive ( HSE )’s evaluation that:
Based on the information currently available, it is considered that the potential adverse effects to honey bees and other pollinators cannot be excluded to a satisfactory level if an authorisation were to be granted and this outweighs any likely benefits.
The Committee advised that:
Overall, the new evidence does not alter previous advice because landscape effects will be driven by chronic impacts on pollinators, such as behavioural changes, rather than direct mortality. Members also noted that the ECP views took into consideration effects on all pollinators not just honey bees.
The applicants have submitted evidence from one field study that has been assessed by HSE , however, it is not the only field study published and there is scope for a meta-analysis of these studies.
Additional data and information on impacts of thiamethoxam and clothianidin on homing and behaviour is available in published literature, which could be considered and integrated into the chronic risk assessment.
The monitoring data do not directly show that use of ‘Cruiser SB’ is causing concern for water. However, these data are collected at the catchment scale, rather than at edge-of-field. Concentrations are likely to have been diluted by drainage from untreated parts of the catchment. To understand the dilution effect on the surface water data, it would be useful to understand how much of a catchment is being treated and what local effects this is having (for example, via monitoring headwater streams containing treated fields).
It was also noted that the samples in the monitoring data are only from part of the year when there has been exceptionally low rainfall. More data over the remainder of the year and into next season will be beneficial to understanding whether use is causing detection frequency and peak concentrations to rise.
The monitoring data on soil do show some detections at the field margin. The interpretation of the data is hampered by rather high detection limits (more than 10 fold higher than other reported limit of detection values). There is insufficient data available to conclude on the risk of transfer of the active (and major metabolites) to plants. However, as these are only interim data, the data can be re-examined when the full report is available. Continued monitoring in this area is required to allow meaningful conclusions to be reached. However, improving analytical methods to lower limits of quantitation would be useful, if possible.
The lack of yield data prevents effective interpretation of the seed or foliar treatment breakdown data. It could be possible, using maximum likelihood statistical methods to estimate the contribution of each control option to eventual yield if these data were available. Robust yield data may more suitably be derived from specific studies rather than within the complex co-factors inevitable if relying on monitoring data.
The inclusion of yield data and an appropriate statistical analysis of treatment effects would be useful to inform any future applications. Alongside this, updates on projects looking for alternatives, specifically resistant varieties, would be useful to understand future options.
The committee was not aware of any agronomic factors (including market conditions, availability or unavailability of alternatives), that alter the case from their previous assessments.
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/neonicotinoid-product-as-seed-treatment-for-sugar-beet-emergency-authorisation-application/the-uk-expert-committee-on-pesticides-ecp-advice-2023-use-of-cruiser-sb-on-sugar-beet
Published and (C) by Common Dreams
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 3.0..
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/commondreams/
