The options proposed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for the revision of its 2013 guidance document on pesticide risk assessment for bees – and in particular option 2, which has the support of a majority of Member States – are unacceptable, warned MEPs on the European Parliament's Environment Committee on Thursday 1 October.
Representatives of the European Commission and EFSA were accused of playing into the hands of the pesticide industry and torpedoing current bee protection, during a debate requested by the Greens/EFA group, ahead of a decision by Member State experts expected on 23 October (see EUROPE 12571/10).
The proposed option 2 for honey bees and bumble bees is based on a percentage of natural variability in bee colonies and a mathematical model developed by Syngenta – the Beehave model – to define the acceptable level increase in bee mortality due to pesticides, which could be set at 20%.
“What is the scientific validity of this model? Will you ensure that the current target of 7% is maintained as the negligible level of loss? And which model do you prefer?”asked Bas Eickhout, recalling that option 3 was the closest to the original EFSA document.
Manuela Tiramani, Head of the Pesticides Unit of EFSA, acknowledged that approach 2 has limited scientific validity, as the use of Beehave has not been validated. “But it’s not true that we are in favour of the industry. Elements of approach 3 will be taken up.”
The Commission’s Head of Unit for Pesticides, Klaus Berend, assured that under no circumstances would the 20% figure correspond to mortality from pesticides alone and that the Commission would push for option 2.
“The Commission remains neutral. We are open to discussion with Member States; they think that approach 2 is acceptable for bees and bumblebees. A number are proposing option 3 for solitary bees”, he said. He also insisted on the need for an approach that is implemented by States, since what was proposed in 2017 and 2019 has not been implemented.
“Most options are wildly moving away from the primary objective of reversing the decline of pollinators. Approaches that look only at the long-term survival of colonies or define, with these famous mathematical models, the usefulness of a hive or its supposed natural variability do not address our concerns and are not based on science”, said Frédérique Ries (Renew Europe). For Eleonora Evi (Non-attached Member), it is “absurd to talk about a tolerable percentage of mortality in bees”. This is acceptable to Member States so that pesticide manufacturers continue to sell their toxic substances, said Anja Hazekamp (GUE/NGL).
A number of MEPs have pointed out that last year 533 MEPs said that they would accept nothing less than the protection of all pollinators.
Committee Chair Pascal Canfin recalled that in October 2019, the European Parliament had objected to a draft regulation that only partially incorporated the EFSA guide. “If you come back with an equivalent or worse proposal, it will be rejected. Get off to a good start. It is also in the hands of the Member States”, he warned.
On the same day, the NGO PAN Europe (Pesticide Action Network), wrote to the European Commission to express its deepest concerns.
“In contrast to the claim made by EFSA and DG SANTE, there is no evidence presented that this Approach has anything to do with science and it appears to be a complete black box”, writes Hans Muilerman in a letter to Commissioner Stella Kyriakides.
“We urge you to stop this process and start with involving independent experts and the public. And first assess independently what level of protection results from the different options.” (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)