Decision

Statement on the decision to refuse applications to use neonicotinoid products as seed treatments for sugar beet

Published 11 October 2018

The government supported new rules which prohibit the outdoor use of three neonicotinoids - clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam - from December. In taking that position, the government made it clear that it could consider emergency authorisations in exceptional circumstances where there was a real need for the products and the risk to bees and other pollinators was sufficiently low.

Based on scientific advice, the government has decided to reject applications for emergency authorisation to allow two products containing neonicotinoids to be used to treat sugar beet seed next year.

This note:

• outlines the legal requirements applying to the applications
• explains the extent to which the requirements have been met
• indicates the issues that would need to be addressed by any future application for emergency authorisation

The process for assessment and decision-making

The advice of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides (ECP) on the case for need, predicted risks and available mitigation options was put to Defra Ministers.

Based on the information provided, the HSE and ECP recommended that emergency authorisations should not be granted for the proposed uses, on the grounds that the risks to bees and the wider environment contained in the proposals put forward were too great. Ministers have accepted these recommendations and the applications have therefore been refused.

The requirements for emergency authorisation

Applications for emergency authorisation must:

• demonstrate that authorisation appears necessary because of a danger which cannot be contained by any other reasonable means
• provide assurance that use of the product will be limited and controlled
• address the potential risks to people and to the environment from use of the products

The assessment of the applications concluded that they met the first requirement in full and met the second subject to further clarification of the predictive model used to determine whether seed treatment is required. The third requirement was not met.

The first requirement: the case for need

The HSE and the ECP consider that the applicant made a case for need which met the legal requirement for emergency authorisation, which is that such a measure appears necessary because of a danger which cannot be contained by any other reasonable means. The neonicotinoid seed treatments provide important protection against insect pests and the viruses they can transmit that cannot be provided in any other practical manner.

The second requirement: limited and controlled use

The applicant proposed a method to predict whether treatment was needed. This was welcomed by the ECP but they had some questions about how it would work. All UK sugar beet is grown under commercial contracting arrangements and the assessors agreed that this provided an effective mechanism for controlling the distribution and use of the treated seed and for ensuring compliance with restrictions to minimise environmental effects.

The third requirement: risks to people and the environment

Risks to bees

The applications recognised that the persistence and mobility of neonicotinoids in soils could result in residues with the potential to cause unacceptable effects to bees in following crops and flowering plants in field margins. Measures were proposed to mitigate these impacts but the ECP noted a shortage of evidence as to how far these would be effective.

Other environmental risks

Since the products were first authorised in the UK, there have been a number of updates to the available data and the rules for carrying out some aspects of the environmental risk assessment. As is normal practice where emergency authorisations give rise to areas of potential concern, risk assessments to modern standards were prepared to inform the authorisation decision. This evaluation identified several concerns:

• potential risks to birds and mammals eating seedlings from treated seed and birds consuming pelleted seed were identified
• the persistence of the active substances in soil
• the potential in some situations for concentrations of neonicotinoids in surface waters to be at levels that could harm populations of aquatic insects.

Possible future applications

It is possible for further applications to be made. Any such applications would need to provide additional evidence to address the following points:

• clarifying the method for predicting the need to use neonicotinoids
• the risk to bees from succeeding flowering crops in soil with neonicotinoid residues
• refining the risk assessment for birds and mammals and/or outlining a list of mitigating effects which can be applied
• impacts on aquatic invertebrates