20 I EUROPEAN SEED I EUROPEAN-SEED.COM IMPACT ON SUGAR BEETS These additional restrictions being proposed are for the use of thiamethoxam on crops that are not considered attractive to bees. Restricting the use of thiamethoxam on leafy veg- etables and crops which are harvested before they flower and not considered bee attractive, will do little to improve the health of pollinators. It is entirely logical that exposure of bees to thiamethoxam on these crops can be deemed insig- nificant whichever route is considered be that exposure via flowering weeds, exposure via guttation water or exposure through pollen and nectar for example. In addition it should be remembered that publications generated by the European Commission itself have clearly shown that neonicotinoids pose minimum threat to bee health compared to other factors such as lack of food, diseases and cold weather. Thiamethoxam, widely used by sugar beet growers in Europe for the last 15 years, has proven to be a safe, effective and reliable crop protection tool in sugar beet production. It plays a vital role in allowing farmers to drill early, ensuring fast and even crop establishment for a longer growing period and increased yields. The alternative to neonicotinoid pesti- cides for these crops would be to go back to lower efficacy foliar sprays from the early nineties, such as pyrethroids. We estimate that such a restriction would need to be compen- sated by up to three foliar insecticide applications. This would represent a damaging reduction in return on investment for growers by increasing cost and labour time, while conversely reducing yields. Furthermore, the resistance risk of pyre- throids would grow even more due to extensive use. In case of a ban, it is likely that the beet yield would drop by more than 25% in certain growing regions, and that acreage would reduce in oceanic areas where yellows virus pressure is high, exposing the processing sector to higher fixed costs as a consequence of under-utilization of capacity. The proposed ban would occur at the same time as the European sugar market abolishes sugar quotas and minimum beet prices, and would consequently weaken its international competi- tiveness against cane sugar. Sugar beet is not attractive to bees. Residues of thia- methoxam degrade rapidly in typical European sugar beet soils, reaching very low concentrations after one year. A new pollen and nectar residue study initiated in 2017 in Germany and Austria following a 2016 sugar beet cropping confirms no significant impact. If a risk to bees was still believed to be present, mandatory label requirements excluding plant- ing of bee attractive crops could be established in the year following a sugar beet crop. The dominant succeeding crops after sugar beet are winter cereals which are also considered non-bee attractive. Ioana Tudor, Global Head of Seedcare at Syngenta winter oilseed rape crops. Further to that, there are some differ- ences in the study approach, but nevertheless, the study demon- strated very similarly significant impacts at farm level: •  Across these seven countries, oilseed rape crop areas declined by approximately 4 per cent in 2016; •  The combined economic impact across the countries of the loss of production (€ 96 million) and increased cost of production (€ 86 million) is estimated to have reduced the industry farm gate gross margin of oilseed rape production by € 182 million, which represents an average reduction of 9 per cent in 2015; this includes cases, in which growing winter oilseed rape may no longer be profitable. •  A high risk of resistance development due to an estimated 5-fold increase in pyrethroid usage increase. Another recent study carried out by the consultancy Steward Redqueen looked at a broader, cumulative impact of losing an even higher number of substances currently used in crop protection products in Europe. Similarly, the study demon- strated that without these crop protection products, EU farmers might be at risk of suffering from significant yield losses and that greenhouse gas emissions related to cultivation would sig- nificantly rise. The results of these studies demonstrate that it is worth putting costs and benefits of banning neonicotinoids into per- spective. Editor’s Note: Based on the HFFA Research report “Banning neonicoti- noids in the European Union – An ex-post assessment of economic and environmental costs” (January 2017) and on the LMC International report “The Economic Impact of a Ban on Neonicotinoids on the EU Sugar Beet Sector” (May 2017). HFFA report: http://hffa-research.com/new-hffa-research-pa- per-published-the-economic-and-environmental-costs-of-ban- ning-neonicotinoides-in-the-eu/ EFSA on Bee Health: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/ bee-health EU Commission report on Bee Health: https://ec.europa.eu/food/ sites/food/files/animals/docs/la_bees_health_honeybee_health_ communication_en.pdf The impact of restrictions on neonicotinoid and fipronil insecti- cides on pest management in maize, oilseed rape and sunflower in eight European Union regions (August 2017): https://www. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28842940 “Many farmers perceived that the time, cost and amount of insecticides required to protect crops increased, along with pest pressure.”