Latest news with #DaveGoulson
Yahoo
08-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Scientists uncover massive collateral damage tied to a routine practice: 'A necessary evil'
For decades, scientists have known that pesticide use negatively impacts many species, including humans, and ecosystems. But new research has found that not only do pesticides harm some species — they harm nearly all of them. The study, published in the journal Nature Communications, was conducted by international research teams from the United Kingdom and China. It was one of the largest studies on the broad impacts of pesticide use to date. "Our study provides an unparalleled insight into the consequences of pesticide use on the natural environment globally," co-author Ben Woodcock said in a news release from the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, per After analyzing over 1,700 existing studies of agricultural, commercial, and domestic pesticide use, researchers found that the negative effects were "overwhelming," "wide-ranging," and pervasive across hundreds of species, per the report. These negative effects included impacts on reproductive processes, individual growth, hunting and foraging abilities, metabolism, mating behaviors, and more. In many cases, the use of pesticides leads to premature death and population loss. "It is often assumed that pesticides are toxic primarily to the target pest and closely related organisms, but this is clearly not true," Dave Goulson, another researcher, explained. "Concerningly, we found pervasive negative impacts across plants, animals, fungi and microbes, threatening the integrity of ecosystems." It's clear that widespread pesticide use is a major contributor to the loss of biodiversity around the world. And while this may sound like a vague, undefined issue, it has concrete effects. As the Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, part of the American Museum of Natural History, puts it, biodiversity provides fundamental resources for humans, including food, shelter, fuel, and medicine. "Further, ecosystems provide crucial services such as pollination, seed dispersal, climate regulation, water purification, nutrient cycling, and control of agricultural pests," it states. Yet pesticides are still used, as Woodcock said, because our modern agricultural systems would fail without them. "Pesticides are a necessary evil, without which global food production and farmers' livelihoods would likely collapse," he said. "However, our findings highlight the need for policies and practices to reduce their use." Do you worry about pesticides in your food? All the time Sometimes Not really I only eat organic Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. While some pesticides will continue being used, researchers recommended limiting their application as much as possible. This is already being done in many parts of the world; for example, over 10% of agricultural land in the European Union is free from synthetic pesticides. And scientists encouraged farmers to adopt a surprisingly simple technique instead of spraying toxic chemical treatments: planting wildflowers. These support species that naturally eat pests, such as ladybugs and beetles. Similarly, wildlife-friendly landscaping can attract other natural predators, including frogs, birds, and hedgehogs. And Woodcock said that there was "a lot of scope in the future" for incorporating technology into future solutions, such as using artificial intelligence to monitor pests with cameras or developing highly accurate application techniques to avoid unnecessary contamination. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
The Guardian
23-02-2025
- Health
- The Guardian
Flea treatments are turning our pets into an environmental hazard – there has to be a better way
When I was 10, I succeeded in my campaign for a family dog. Part of her care, and our joy as owners, was the monthly application of spot-on worm and flea treatment. With veterinary medicine on my mind as a career, I relished the theatre of vets-at-home. We bought doses over the counter, scheduling the dog's treatment on the calendar like a five-a-side. We applied these drugs to our dog because every other owner did. Because it was encouraged, because it was easy, because it felt right. New research confirms the use of such veterinary drugs as an unmanned checkpoint in the landscape of environmental contamination. Put simply, caring for our dog was polluting the natural world. A study from the University of Sussex reveals songbirds as the latest victims. Blue tits and great tits are two of many birds that line their nests with animal fur. Every sampled nest contained fipronil and 89% contained imidacloprid and permethrin – three insecticides so potent they have been banned for agricultural use in the UK and EU, but can be bought by anyone for use on pets. In the study, nest mortality correlated with drug concentration. Eggs never hatched; chicks expired after hatching – at a time when almost half of all UK bird species are in a state of serious decline. 'The simplest explanation is that eggs and chicks are getting a sufficient dose of pesticide from the nest lining to kill. There's enough medication in the environment to pollute every single blue and great tit nest,' says Prof Dave Goulson, a co-author of the study. Bird nest pollution mirrors the state of our rivers. Studies by Dr Rosemary Perkins found fipronil persists in 99% of samples taken from 20 English rivers, with imidacloprid found in 66% of samples. My dog was one of the approximately 17.5 million cats and dogs in the UK – about 80% of the total of 22 million – that get regular over-the-counter worm and flea treatment, whether suffering from an infestation or not. One flea treatment of a medium-sized dog contains enough pesticide to kill 60 million bees. Will it take the silence of vanishing biodiversity for us to hear nature's cry? Goulson is one of many scientists warning of collateral damage from veterinary drugs, but a regulatory blind spot has kept the environmental repercussions largely hidden – hushed like an interruption. Pet medications aren't subject to the same risk assessments as they are for use on livestock. When flea treatments entered the market in the 1990s, their environmental impact was assumed trivial. I sense the veterinary profession has been caught off-guard by this ethical battle of balancing pet health with environmental responsibility. 'It's a real dilemma,' says Dr Sean McCormack, a small animal vet and conservationist. 'As a vet, you've taken an oath to 'protect and enhance animal welfare'. But you're contaminating nature – how did we miss this?' Pets aren't the only source. A recent study shows that handwashing by owners in the weeks after spot-on treatment is also a major contributor. And McCormack describes the down-the-drain pathway of fipronil administered in 'insane quantities' across equestrian facilities to protect hooves and fetlocks against feather mites. Horses return to muddy fields, and fipronil leaches into water and soil, fast and unseen. Vets find themselves in a tough position. They are constrained by the absence of viable alternatives, the expectations of millions of pet owners trying to do the right thing, and the biological phenomenon of the flea. Flea infestations can be fatal, and effective flea treatments must eliminate more than 90% of fleas in the environment. Otherwise, their staggering reproductive rate – a flea can lay 50 eggs a day – makes control nigh impossible. Fleas spend most of their life cycle away from their host, making eradication even more challenging. As for alternatives, flea collars and oral tablets generally contain many of the same harmful chemicals as spot-on treatments. Alternative chemical treatments are either potent toxins or essential oils with no proven efficacy. There is a serious economic argument to lessen animal medication overall. 'We could probably remove 80-90% of any of these chemicals with immediate effect,' says Goulson, who also rightly challenges our bewildering, increasing obsession with pets. Reducing pet medication could structure a case-by-case approach. 'Most practices are improving – tailoring application schedules to suit the individual pet and owner's lifestyle,' says McCormack. If the dog is allergic to fleas, they should be prescribed monthly treatment. But treatment shouldn't be preventive. You wouldn't treat an empty scalp for head lice, and the same goes for fleas: if there is no infestation, keep a lid on it. We should also welcome recommendations to bond with our pets through husbandry, attentiveness on walks and home hygiene. Regular grooming can detect parasites early, allowing for reactive treatment. Washing pet bedding in hot water every few weeks and vacuuming sleeping areas help eliminate flea eggs and larvae that live there. And if your pet does require treatment? 'Please don't let them enter watercourses at all,' McCormack implores, citing further work from Goulson's lab that observed lethal doses of medication washing off dogs 28 days after application. How does that measure up to brand advice on the back of the packet? Most recommend a mere '48 to 72 hours' of water abstinence after treatment. Pharmaceutical companies place poison in the palm of our hands. Veterinary surgeon Claire Whittle works with farmers to treat livestock strategically, and argues that spring is the perfect time to broach the conversation about using less medication with your vet. And countryside management like rotational grazing and taller grasses can be as effective at reducing parasite exposure as some pesticides. Native species such as sainfoin and chicory not only pose a structural challenge for parasites, but they contain natural insecticides. 'Diversifying plants could be better for animal health as well as wildlife health. Medication should not be the first line of defence,' says Whittle. Looking ahead, parasites are evolving with worsening climate breakdown, spreading new disease risks. But on the brighter side, some countries are improving regulation. Ireland is making flea and worm treatments prescription only, offering a valuable case study for future policy changes in the UK. Could this spur urgent cooperation between industry regulators, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, pharmaceutical companies and the pet-owning public? Protecting our pets should never come at the cost of protecting nature. And I worry this uniquely human business of eliminating parasites, mixed with private sector procrastination to find and fund regulated, alternative veterinary medication, risks us morphing into the most hedonistic parasite of all. But parasites have little to gain from killing their host. They must keep them alive, in symbiosis. There is power for change, in our poisonous hands. Sophie Pavelle is a writer and science communicator
Yahoo
29-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Government moves to outlaw chemical that could kill 1.25 billion bees with just a teaspoon: 'Vital to our food and economic security'
British bees could soon be getting a break as legislators aim to ban a popular type of pesticide known as neonicotinoids. However, agricultural lobbyists may be carving out an exception for a popular neonicotinoid, Cruiser SB, the Guardian said. According to the report, legislators have forged a path to banning three neonicotinoids: clothianidin, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam. Brexit allowed British farmers to dodge a ban on these pesticides from the European Union. The U.K.'s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has approved emergency allowances for the use of thiamethoxam every year since 2021, though that consistency has earned it an investigation by the Office for Environmental Protection, per the Guardian. "These neurotoxins persist in soils for years, and they are now known to be found in hedgerow plants, streams and ponds," explained ecologist Dave Goulson, professor of biology at the University of Sussex, in a response to a news article posted on a university web page. Goulson continued: "One teaspoon is enough to deliver a lethal dose to 1.25 billion honeybees (it would kill half of them, and leave the others feeling very unwell). But they do not just pose a threat to bees; any insect living on farmland or in streams that flow from farmland, and any organisms that depend on insects for food (e.g. many birds and fish) are likely to be affected." U.K. pollinator populations have been in steep decline for some time, though that trend has also been visible worldwide. Bees are vitally important to the growth of crops, as they facilitate seed production in plants. Without pollinators, human food supplies are in deep danger. "An end to the previous government's annual pantomime of granting the 'emergency' use of these deeply harmful pesticides is long overdue," said Paul de Zylva, nature campaigner at Friends of the Earth, per the Guardian. "But we're not out of the woods yet — the government must follow through by fully committing to a complete ban come January. And it must go even further still, by scrapping the current, weak national pesticides action plan and instead produce a credible version." Do you worry about pesticides in your food? All the time Sometimes Not really I only eat organic Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. "There should be no place in this country for pesticides that poison our bees, period," added Doug Parr, Greenpeace UK's policy director. "So it's good to see ministers confirming their commitment to a complete ban on these bee-killing chemicals, but now they should waste no time in bringing it into effect." The U.K. plans to publish a National Action Plan, which will dictate how pesticides can be used. "A healthy environment is vital to our food and economic security. Protecting bees by stopping the use of damaging neonicotinoids is an important step in supporting the long-term health of our environment and waterways, and our farming sector," Environment Minister Emma Hardy said in a statement in December when the ban moved forward. Other organizations, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council in the U.S., are running public awareness campaigns about neonics at large and their public health concerns, including a major NRDC petition, and using legal actions to try to get regulations on companies such as Bayer who are profiting from these insecticides. Beyond petitions and advocacy, you can support pollinators by making your yard a more friendly place for them. In addition to forgoing chemical treatments as much as possible, choosing native flowering plants for your garden can help combat the habitat loss that is also endangering these crucial creatures. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
