Editor’s note: This commentary is by John Hayden, who holds a master’s degree in entomology from Michigan State University and has over 35 years experience as a researcher, university educator and consultant specializing in integrated pest management, pollinator conservation and agroecology. He and his wife Nancy have been operating The Farm Between, an organic fruit farm and nursery in Jeffersonville for the past 26 years.
[T]he people of our state need to hold legislators and public servants accountable for pollinator protection efforts. When neonicotinoid (neonic) insecticides first came on the market 25 years ago, they were hailed as amazing chemical tools. Systemic (carried and expressed throughout the plants cells), water soluble, long lived, and with low toxicity to mammals, what was there not to love for farmers and homeowners intent on waging war on insects?
Then ecological reality set in. Birds were ingesting seeds coated with neonics, exposed bees were showing direct mortality and all kinds of sublethal effects like lowered egg production, navigation problems and weakened immune systems, and neonics were being found in surface water at levels harmful to aquatic organisms. Insect and bird numbers have been declining around the world. The pesticide industry has a public relations nightmare to deal with, and beekeepers and fruit and vegetable farmers like myself have a new direct threat to our livelihoods with these increased stresses on our vital pollinator partners.
Finally, after much stalling and muddying of the waters by the pesticide industry, the weight of scientific evidence clearly shows that neonics are causing irreparable harm to birds, beneficial insects, aquatic organisms, honeybees, native bees and other pollinators. In response, the European Union has just banned the field application of the three most widely used neonics. Meanwhile in Vermont …
Last year, the Legislature passed a bill to convene a Pollinator Protection Committee to develop a pollinator protection plan for the state. The members were representative stakeholders from the agricultural and scientific community. I gladly agreed to serve as a member. We met multiple times and had lengthy meetings filled with scientific testimony and respectful discussions on the presentations. We then made a series of recommendations that were recorded by the Agency of Agriculture. One of the recommendations was to get the neonics out of homeowners’ hands where they were being used on lawns and gardens with labeled rates up to 17 times that allowed for agricultural use.
H.915, An Act Related to the Protection of Pollinators, started in the House Agriculture Committee. One of its original intents was to make neonics “restricted use pesticides” requiring a license to apply them. Farmers could still use them, but homeowners would not be able to buy them over the counter at the hardware chain stores. Through debates and compromise the bill was watered down and then slightly strengthened by the Senate. In the bill’s current form, neonics will not be allowed to be used on ornamentals starting in 2021. For context, the European ban on all field uses goes into effect in six months. In Vermont, even this future small step away from widespread neonic use is in jeopardy of being rejected by the House as it comes up for debate this week.
The Agency of Agriculture’s role in this neonic debate has been troubling to me. The testimony they offered at the Statehouse has not been supportive of any meaningful action to restrict neonic use. They are not being the voice of the legislated Pollinator Protection Committee of which they were a part. The ag agency’s entrenched pro pesticide stance (mentioning the potential loss of industry registration payments in testimony, for example), and their inability to embrace change in the face of indisputable science is not acceptable. Beekeepers and fruit and vegetable farmers are an important face of agriculture in this state, and with the demise of pollinators our farming future is on the line.
One idea being floated around by opponents to the bill is that by restricting neonics, we are choosing between bees and children because insecticides that are more toxic to humans will be substituted on lawns and shrubs. This is absurd. First of all, there are other ways to manage pests without pesticides. We grow fruit with no pesticides contrary to what the “experts” say is possible. And people with small children and pets should not be putting toxic chemicals on their lawn anyway. Even with a pesticide mindset, the Agency of Agriculture can regulate those toxic substitutes if they are a danger for homeowners and their children. We need some leaders in the Agency of Agriculture and our Legislature who are capable of doing the right thing and thinking outside of the pesticide container. Fellow citizens, please make some noise this week for the pollinators.
