New research has identified the world’s most widely used insecticides as the key factor in the recent reduction in numbers of farmland birds. The finding represents a significant escalation of the known dangers of the insecticides and follows an assessment in June that warned that pervasive pollution by these nerve agents was now threatening all food production. The neonicotinoid insecticides are believed to seriously harm bees and other pollinating insects, and a two-year EU suspension on three of the poisons began at the end of 2013. Peer-reviewed research, published in the leading journal Nature this Wednesday, has revealed data from the Netherlands showing that bird populations fell most sharply in those areas where neonicotinoid pollution was highest. Starlings, tree sparrows and swallows were among the most affected. At least 95% of neonicotinoids applied to crops ends up in the wider environment, killing the insects the birds rely on for food, particularly when raising chicks.
The researchers, led by Hans de Kroon, an ecologist at Radboud University, in the Netherlands, examined other possible reasons for the bird declines seen during the study period of 2003 to 2010, including intensification of farming. But high pollution by a neonicotinoid known as imidacloprid was by far the largest factor.
“It is very surprising and very disturbing,” de Kroon said. Water pollution levels of just 20 nanograms of neonicotinoid per litre led to a 30% fall in bird numbers over 10 years, but some water had contamination levels 50 times higher. “That is why it is so disturbing – there is an incredible amount of imidacloprid in the water,” he said. “And it is not likely these effects will be restricted to birds.”
De Kroon added: “All the other studies [on harm caused by neonicotinoids] build up from toxicology studies. But we approached this completely from the other end. We started with the bird population data and tried to explain the declines. Our study really makes the evidence complete that something is going on here. We can’t go on like this any more. It has to stop.”
David Goulson, a professor at the University of Sussex, who was not involved in the new studies, said the research was convincing and ruled out likely alternative causes of bird decline. “The simplest, most obvious, explanation is that highly toxic substances that kill insects lead to declines in things that eat insects.”
There was little reason to doubt that wildlife in the UK and other countries were not suffering similar harm, he said. “This work flags up the point that this isn’t just about bees, it is about everything. When hundreds or thousands of species or insect are being wiped out, it’s going to have impacts on bats, shrews, hedgehogs, you name it. It is pretty good evidence of wholesale damage to the environment.”
Goulson said that, unlike the Netherlands, the UK did not monitor neonicotinoid pollution and the EU ban would not remove the substances from the environment. “They are still being widely used, as the moratorium only applies to three neonicotinoids and some crops. There is still a lot of them going into the environment. The door is far from shut.”
A spokesman for Bayer CropScience, which makes the neonicotinoid that was examined in the study, disputed the findings. “It provides no substantiated evidence of the alleged indirect effects of imidacloprid on insectivorous birds. Bayer CropScience is working with the Dutch authorities and agricultural stakeholders to ensure the safe use of imidacloprid-containing crop protection products and to preserve the environment.”
He added: “Neonicotinoids have gone through an extensive risk assessment which has shown that they are safe to the environment when used responsibly according to the label instructions.”
But de Kroon said new research, including his own, was showing that neonicotinoids posed an even greater threat than had been anticipated and new regulations had to take this into account. In 2012, MPs warned regulators appeared to be “turning a blind eye” to the harm caused by neonicotinoids.
David Gibbons, head of the RSPB centre for conservation science, said: “This elegant and important study provides worrying evidence of negative impacts of neonicotinoid insecticides on birds. Monitoring of neonicotinoid pollution in UK soils and waterways is urgently required, as is research into the effects of these insecticides on wildlife.”
A Defra spokesperson said: “Pesticide use across Europe is tightly regulated to protect the environment and public health – [pesticides] are a safe, effective and economical means of managing crops. We continue to review evidence on neonicotinoids.”
Also on Wednesday, further research showing that neonicotinoids damage the natural ability of bees to collect food was published in the journal Functional Ecology. The work used tiny tags to track bees and found those exposed to the insecticide gathered less pollen.
“Exposure to this neonicotinoid seems to prevent bees from being able to learn essential skills,” said Nigel Raine, a professor at the University of Guelph, Canada. He said the regulatory tests, which only looked for short-term, lethal effects, were failing to prevent serious harm. “These tests should be conducted for extended periods to detect the effects of chronic exposure.
Source: The Guardian, 9 July 2014
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/09/neonicotinoids-farml…
Declines in insectivorous birds are associated with high neonicotinoid concentrations http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13531.html
- Log in to post comments
We could have had an appeal for a ban on neonics in 2010
The Druckrey–Küpfmüller equation established in the early 1960s for genotoxic carcinogens such as diethylnitrosamine explains why toxicity may occur after prolonged exposure to very low toxicant levels. In essence, this equation states that the total dose required to produce the same effect decreases with decreasing exposure levels, even though the exposure times required to produce the same effect increase with decreasing exposure levels. Druckrey and Küpfmüller inferred in the late 1940s that if both receptor binding and the effect are irreversible, exposure time would reinforce the effect. Recently, similar dose–response characteristics have been established by Henk Tennekes and Francisco Sanchez-Bayo (in 2009 and 2010) for the toxicity of the neonicotinoid insecticides imidacloprid and thiacloprid to arthropods. Imidacloprid was the first highly effective insecticide whose mode of action has been found to derive from almost complete and virtually irreversible blockage of postsynaptic nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) in the central nervous system of insects. Imidacloprid mimics the action of acetylcholine, but unlike acetylcholine, imidacloprid is not deactivated by acetylcholinesterase and thus persistently activates nAChRs. Chronic exposure of insects to imidacloprid therefore leads to cumulative and virtually irreversible blockage of nAChRs in their central nervous system, which play roles in many cognitive processes. These adverse effects of minute levels of imidacloprid are detrimental to a bee colony in the long run and may ultimately cause colony collapse. But bee decline is not the only problem. Neonicotinoid insecticides are prone to leach from soils. Not only are they water soluble and mobile in soil, they are also quite persistent in soil and water. The widely used neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid has caused major pollution of Dutch surface water. In his book "The Systemic Insecticides: A Disaster in the Making" (published in November 2010) Dutch toxicologist Dr Henk Tennekes relates significant recent declines of bird and bee numbers across Europe to the use of neonicotinoid pesticides in agriculture, and suggests that their continued use could result in an ‘environmental catastrophe’ (book attached).
It is perhaps of interest to recall the events that preceded the publication of Henk Tennekes' book Disaster in the Making in November 2010. Tennekes' data were reviewed by a panel of experts (now calling themselves Task Force on Systemic Pesticides) in Paris in June, 2010, and if it hadn’t been for the opposition of David Gibbons, Head of Conservation Science at the RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds), an appeal for a ban on neonics would have been launched by leading conservationists shortly afterwards. But without the support of the RSPB nobody in the TF dared to do so. Remember, this was in 2010.
Gibbons brushed aside Tennekes' evidence and opinionated that there was no evidence linking neonics to bird decline. His RSPB department provided reviews on the decline of blacktailed godwit, whinchat, and northern wheatear (attached) that were clearly set to invalidate the Tennekes reasoning. Gibbons' opinion can be substantiated with his correspondence to the Task Force. On July 23, 2010, Gibbons wrote to Piet Wit and other IUCN colleagues: "My only comment on Piet's point is that there isn't a 'growing concern' among ornithologists. Nobody I have spoken to - even experts on trends in bird numbers in the netherlands, including b-t godwits - have heard of this issue." . Since Tennekes remained convinced of an upcoming environmental disaster, he decided to go it alone and published his data in the now famous book Disaster in the Making in November 2010 (attached). On 1st February 2011 Gibbons wrote to conservationist Dr Rosemary Mason: “I am aware of Henk Tennekes’ book. I sat on a peer review panel that reviewed this work in Paris last year at which Henk was present. The book shows no causal linkage between declines in bird populations and neonicotinoids. It has not been published in the peer reviewed scientific literature, and probably could not as it stands. Consequently I feel there is currently no reason to believe that neonicotinoids are harmful to bird populations.” Gibbons clearly did not have a clue about the grave implications of the exceptional toxicity to arthropods of imidacloprid, which had been polluting the Dutch countryside for a decade, and the persistence of which threathened to break the food chain.
Meanwhile, Gibbons has made a complete U-turn. Renowned Canadian toxicologist/ornithologist Pierre Mineau, who Tennekes had met in Berlin at a SETAC conference in May 2012, confirmed the Tennekes contention with American data in 2013. It is probably at that point that Gibbons decided to jump on the bandwagon. He recently published a review with Mineau telling the very Tennekes story he had brushed aside in 2010.
Senior toxicologist Phil Bentley comments on Tennekes' book
I looked again at your book after receiving this mail and you really did a great job, as I have said before the book was very convincing to me and also enjoyable to look at with the art work! The idea of cumulative toxicity because of the long half-life of inhibition at the molecular target seems very sound, and would account for the extreme toxicity under certain conditions. It is sickening that you are not getting the recognition, you deserve, especially after putting your livelihood at risk, but I see you are still an ardent warrior and wish you luck in this endeavor.
Best wishes
Phil
Philip Bentley
Distinguished Scientist, Preclinical Safety, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation One Health Plaza East Hanover, NJ 07936-1080 USA
July 14, 2014
Dr Sánchez-Bayo summarizes the threat of imidacloprid to birds
I'm not sure if anyone in Birdlife is aware of a new, subtle threat for our birds, especially insectivorous and invertebrate-feeding species, that comes mainly from the indirect impacts of neonicotinoid insecticides. See attached a recent paper published in Nature on this issue. Another report and a book on the topic can be found at the links below
The Systemic Insecticides: A Disaster in the Making, by Henk A. Tennekes http://www.disasterinthemaking.com/
The Impact of the Nation's Most Widely Used Insecticides on Birds, report by Pierre Mineau to the American Bird Conservancy http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/toxins/Neonic_FINAL.pdf
For further information on these insecticides you can contact me
Francisco Sanchez-Bayo, PhD
Dept. Plant and Food Sciences
Faculty of Agriculture & Environment,
The University of Sydney,
1 Central Avenue, C81 - ATP
Eveleigh, NSW 2015, Australia
Tel: +61-2-8627 1046
Letter to the Editor of Nature on Hallmann et al. paper
From: Francisco Sanchez-Bayo
Date: 22 July 2014 1:52:14 PM AEST
To: nature@nature.com
Subject: Letter to the Editor
Dear Editor,
A recent Letter in Nature (17th July 2014) by Hallmann et al.1 does not mention even once the pioneer work on the same issue by Henk. A. Tennekes.
In 2010, Dr Tennekes alerted the world about the indirect impacts of neonicotinoid insecticides on birds by publishing his book “Systemic Neonicotinoids: A Disaster in the Making”2. Although not a peer‐reviewed work, the book made the claim, for the first time, that the recent decline of many species of birds in the Netherlands and other European countries is correlated with the increasing use of imidacloprid and other neonicotinoids during the last two decades. Insectivorous birds and waders were identified in that book as the species most at risk. In fact, 8 among the 14 species of birds studied by Hallmann et al. were explicitly named in that book. Even more interesting is that the declining populations of 5 bird species mentioned by Dr Tennekes were found, by Hallmann et al., to have a positive and significant correlation with neonicotinoid residues in waters. So, why the authors of that paper omitted to cite this source is incomprehensible to me and anyone who has been following developments on this controversial topic.
Science builds upon the foundations laid by previous researchers or people with vision who are able to point out the way forward. This is the main reason for including citations in the scientific literature, other than paying tribute to the authors. However, I wonder if the researchers from Radboud University could have ever thought about the impact that neonicotinoid insecticides may have had on bird populations. My doubts arise from the following:
i) The only other report dealing with the effects of neonicotonoids on birds was released late last year3. Although that report focuses on the acute and chronic toxicity of such insecticides to birds, it also deals with the issue of indirect effects by depletion of the invertebrate foodsource, acknowledging Dr Tennekes as the promoter of this idea and citing his book as a reference.
ii) neonicotinoid insecticides are not particularly toxic to vertebrates and, to my knowledge, no peer‐reviewed papers have yet been published proving the contrary. There are a few studies about the sublethal effects of these compounds on birds, but they do not attract much attention from terrestrial ecotoxicologists for that very reason, let alone interest from ecologists and ornithologists.
It is very likely, therefore, that the authors of that Letter were prompted to thoroughly investigate this issue based on the insights of that book and the numerous public dissertations of Dr Tennekes on this matter. As far as I am aware, scientific citations do not need to be restricted to peer‐reviewed papers or to work carried out only by experts on a particular field (note that Dr Tennekes is neither a professional nor an amateur ornithologist). Anyone who has the vision to suggest a new direction in research should be acknowledged and given the due credit.
Sincerely
Francisco Sanchez‐Bayo, PhD
Dept. Plant and Food Sciences
Faculty of Agriculture & Environment,
The University of Sydney,
1 Central Avenue, C81 ‐ ATP
Eveleigh, NSW 2015, Australia
Tel: +61‐2‐8627 1046
References
1 Hallmann, C. A., Foppen, R. P. B., van Turnhout, C. A. M., de Kroon, H. & Jongejans, E. Declines
in insectivorous birds are associated with high neonicotinoid concentrations. Nature 2014
advance online publication, doi:10.1038/nature13531
2 Tennekes, H. A. The Systemic Insecticides: A Disaster in the Making. (ETS Nederland BV, 2010).
3 Mineau, P. & Palmer, C. The Impact of the Nation’s Most Widely Used Insecticides on Birds.
(American Bird Conservancy, 2013).
Rosemary Mason & Palle Uhd Jepsen comment (23/07/2014)
In 2010, Dr Henk Tennekes published a ground-breaking paper in Toxicology The significance of the Druckrey–Küpfmüller equation for risk assessment—The toxicity of neonicotinoid insecticides to arthropods is reinforced by exposure time and his book: The systemic insecticides: a disaster in the making. In a Report Commissioned by the American Bird Conservancy in 2013, Dr Pierre Mineau, world-renowned environmental toxicologist, said: “It is clear that we are witnessing contamination of the aquatic environment at levels that will affect aquatic food chains. This has a clear potential to affect consumers of those aquatic resources, be they birds, fish or amphibians.” In 2010 Dr Henk Tennekes had been the first to warn about bird declines in Europe secondary to arthropod declines due to the irreversible effects of neonicotinoid insecticides, but he was ignored by many environmental organisations, apart from Buglife. Four years later IUCN and the RSPB woke up to the truth, but failed to acknowledge Dr Tennekes’ original work. In 2014 an IUCN Report: Systemic pesticides pose global threat to biodiversity and ecosystem services: “Twenty nine scientists from four continents revealed the full scale of damage done to ecosystem services by the neonicotinoid insecticides; not only to bees, but to butterflies, birds, to earthworms in the soil, aquatic invertebrates and fish.”
Science builds upon the foundations laid by previous researchers
In 2010, Henk Tennekes, a Dutch toxicology consultant published a book: "The systemic insecticides: a disaster in the making." As important as Rachel Carson's book: "Silent Spring" sounding an alarm about the use of the DDT insecticide, the book reports the analyses of 26 different surface water samples around the Netherlands. The imidacloprid concentrations ranged from 19-4,776 times the acceptable limit of 67 ng/L. No sample was within acceptable limits. These results indicate that imidacloprid builds up in the environment to toxic levels far exceeding safety limits. Tennekes goes on to present considerable evidence on the negative effects of systemic insecticides on insectivorous birds in the Netherlands, highlighting the widespread environmental devastation these substances are causing.
Source: M. Ragheb. Unsustainable Risk, Human Food Web Collapse, 7/26/2014
The first to blow the whistle about the impact of neonics
Dutch Toxicologist, Dr. Henk Tennekes was the first to blow the whistle about the impact of neonicotinoids. In 2010, he urged the world to push for a ban on these chemicals by describing the apocalyptic horrors that await the world in his best-selling book, A Disaster In The Making.
There have been numerous studies published by world-renowned scientists such as Dr. Randolf Menzel, Dr. Francisco Sánchez-Bayo and Dr. Dave Goulson, proving the impact that neonicotinoids have on bees, Dr. Alex Lu was the first scientist in the USA that has bravely spoken out against the use of neonicotinoids.
Source: June Stoyer, The Organic View
http://www.theorganicview.com/
Imidacloprid pollution and bird decline in Europe and the US
A report published in January of 2013 issued by the American Bird Conservancy chronicles massive bird die offs in North America over the last decade, as well as a long list of failures in the permitting processes of these toxins. Co-authored by internationally renowned bird toxicologist Pierre Mineau and Cynthia Palmer, the Editor in Chief of the news service ‘Environmental Health News’, the report details specific findings of the toxicity of these chemicals to fish, invertebrates and birds. The American Bird Conservancy report comes two years after Dutch toxicologist Dr. Henk Tennekes published the findings of his studies chronicling the long term persistent and lethal effects of Imidacloprid to insects and birds in the Netherlands. A systemic and persistent neonicotinoid, Imidacloprid has been found by Dr. Tennekes to build up in waterways and natural aquatic environments, to persist in those areas and to spread throughout natural habitats connected by waterways. The Rachel Carson Council review of Dr. Tennekes’ book, A Disaster in the Making states:
“Dr. Tennekes’ findings indicate that Imidacloprid (and possibly other neonicotinoid-type insecticides) can bind irreversibly to critical receptors in an insect’s nervous system. If these receptors are permanently blocked, the insecticide would not follow a typical dose-response curve. He provides evidence that long term low-level Imidacloprid exposure can lead to neurological problems and eventual death of insects.”
He has also found that this persistence has led to a drastic reduction of insect biomass in the Netherlands, affecting the food chain.
Source: Becky Mundt in Waking Times, July 9, 2014
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2013/07/09/are-honey-bees-our-proverbial-can…
Was Beegate Deliberately Engineered?
Adding to the issue was a leaked memo by Henk Tennekes (from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)), which implied that a group of scientists from the IUCN affiliated with the task force (who had conducted the academic studies) agreed – in advance of obtaining the data – on the research papers to be published to demonstrate the negative impact of neonicotinoids on insects, birds and other species. It appeared that Beegate was deliberately engineered on the basis of questionable evidence by the IUCN, headed by one of the co-founders of the Dutch WWF and funded by the EU (Miller 2015). Miller suggests that some scientists and EU authorities, were colluding, meaning that business and farming interests stood little chance. The European Crop Protection Association (ECPA-representing many of the companies producing crop protection products) argued that this memo discredits the task force on systemic pesticides set up by IUCN. However, Tennekes responded (Volkskrant 2014): if we do not ban neonicotinoids, we will be on the threshold of an ecological catastrophe. Entire ecosystems will collapse due to insects going extinct. Of course there was a campaign plan, and the participants knew that. I get that some see this as an unscientific approach but in this situation I think it is entirely justifiable.
Comment Henk Tennekes: The fact of the matter is that there was - in the eyes of most scientists that convened in Paris in June 2010 and subsequently participated in the formation of the Task Force - compelling evidence back in 2010 that neonics were going to cause an environmental disaster. However, an influential representative of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), David Gibbons, did not support this contention. To resolve the issue, the Chairman, Maarten Bijleveld van Lexmond, then proposed that more data should be reviewed to underpin the suspected relationship between neonics and insect decline. Yes, there was a clear strategy to get rid of neonics, but there were data to justify the strategy.
Source:
Ragnar Lofstedt & Anne Schlag (2016): Risk-risk tradeoffs: what should we do in Europe?, Journal of Risk Research, DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2016.1153505