Restriction of fipronil is a victory for science, says researcher – 01/11/2024 – Environment

The restriction on the use of the insecticide fipronil, which decimates bees in Brazil, endorses the importance of scientific research, assesses biologist Osmar Malaspina, professor and researcher at the Rio Claro Campus of Unesp (Universidade Estadual Paulista).

Malaspina has been studying bees for 48 years and coordinated one of the most consistent field studies on deaths of these insects, carried out with beekeepers in São Paulo. After collecting samples for almost five years, the study concluded that fipronil was responsible for 70% of deaths.

The application of this pesticide, capable of killing entire hives overnight, is now prohibited on leaves and flowers throughout the national territory, as determined by Ibama (Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources).

“It’s a victory for scientific research and public policy. It seems small, but it’s difficult to achieve something like this. It opens up ways for us to do the same with other dangerous substances”, he says.

Ibama maintained its application on soil and seed treatment, but warned that it is also analyzing the effects of these alternatives — which is interpreted as space for the country to ban the product, as the European Union and countries like Colombia and Costa Rica did.

In Brazil, the insecticide is in the formulation of 153 products, including anti-flea and tick collars for pets and household poison against ants. In the field, its application is permitted in 23 crops, including large-scale crops, such as soybeans and sugar cane.

Survey of beekeeping losses, carried out by Sheet Last year, it showed that the mobilization against fipronil already involved experts in eight states.

“Fipronil is very efficient at killing insects. Aerial application, for example, was banned by Ibama in 2012, but to this day there are producers who disrespect it because this insecticide gives returns”, he explains. “We also identified that there were a lot of application errors. Pesticides end up in the hands of untrained people.”

Read below excerpts from Malaspina’s interview with Sheet.



Mr. is one of the references in the study of bees. How did you receive the fipronil restriction?
It is a victory for scientific research and public policy. It looks small, but it’s hard to get something like that. It opens up ways for us to do the same with other dangerous substances. The decision is temporary, it came as a precautionary decision, but we understand that they are signaling that it will be definitive in the future.

Mr. Didn’t consider the analysis period too long? There were 12 years.
I understand Ibama’s position. He needs to present a consistent reason, of an environmental nature, to call for a reevaluation of a product. It is necessary to gather evidence about the harmful effect. In this case, it was necessary to clearly document that fipronil is responsible for the majority of bee deaths. Only with the security of scientific data is it possible to question its use.

Let’s remember that companies have an entire defense structure. If Ibama’s decision is not well-founded, the companies get an injunction to overturn it the following week.

In fact, Ibama’s first normative instruction on the issue was from 2012. It was this that called for the reevaluation of fipronil and neonicotinoids [associados a morte mais lenta de abelhas]. A reassessment of this type needs at least two years, but may take longer depending on the complexity,

Our work in this regard began in 2013 and took almost five years. Another researcher from Rio Grande do Norte spent similar time [referência a estudo da Universidade Federal Rural do Semiárido, coordenado pelo pesquisador Dayson Castilhos, que avaliou o efeito de agrotóxicos sobre abelhas]. The Health Defense of the State of São Paulo has been carrying out a consistent survey since 2021.

These and other studies confirmed the lethality of fipronil and provided support for Ibama’s decision-making.

When mr. started studying the effect of toxic products on bees?
During my master’s degree, in the 1970s, I carried out one of the first studies on the effect of pesticides on bees, with DDT [utilizado desde a Segunda Guerra, só foi proibido no Brasil em 1985 por causar doenças neurológicas, respiratórias e cardiovasculares em humanos].

At that time, however, mortality in bees from chemicals was not common, and I went no further. In 2005, however, deaths began to be recorded in São Paulo. My experience in this was 0.0001%, but I was among the few with any idea, and I was approached.

Mr. Do you remember what was the death that triggered the alert regarding pesticides?
It was one in Boa Esperança, near Araraquara, in 2008. The owner of the apiary called me. It was 800 meters from a citrus plantation. On Wednesday, a plane passed by spraying. By Thursday, all the bees were dead. He wanted to know how to proceed. I explained that I needed to file a police report, collect bees and send them for analysis in the laboratory. It was complicated. Brazilian laboratories did not have the experience to analyze pesticides on bees. They needed to look for methodology abroad.

After that came a series of other deaths. We said it was a pesticide, and the industries denied the correlation.

What was their argument??
They said it was a disease. There is a type of mite called varroa that is very lethal to European and American bees. In 1978, he was identified in Brazil. It turns out that the Brazilian bee is a mix of a European and an African bee, and this hybrid is very resistant to this mite.

It became an impasse. The companies insisted on varroa, and we, on our side, said that there was no such thing as this mite decimating hives in Brazil. The only thing capable of wiping out a hive within 24 hours would be an insecticide.

When was it proven to be a pesticide?
When studies were intensified. In our case, in São Paulo, we did a mapping report called Colmeia Viva. We set up the project, and the industry supported it, via Sindiveg (National Union of the Plant Defense Products Industry).

We made an informal agreement. If it was the mite, I would go public and say that the insecticides were not to blame. But if it were, the industries would have to admit it.

We started in 2013. We published a 0800 number and hired a collection and analysis company, so there would be no discrepancies. This outsourced person took the samples to a laboratory specialized in identifying pesticides.

We made 240 visits to places where deaths occurred. Not all yielded samples. Sometimes, the beekeeper took too long to notify, and the sample lost its validity. Until 2017, we obtained material from 130 incidents. Analysis showed that 85 had pesticides, 70% of which were fipronil.

And what was the industry’s reaction?
There was an evaluation committee, with researchers and company representatives. There was no way to refute the reports. Given the result, the only question left was: what to do?

And what was the answer?
The ideal would be to ban it. As a researcher, I believe that fipronil had to be removed from the market. The molecule is very aggressive. But agribusiness is strong. It gets hard. Many bee scientists were angry with me for not simply defending the ban.

To be practical, I assessed that it would be better to join forces with industries to look for alternatives that would avoid deaths.

One of them was to defend coexistence. We show the advantages for producers of working with bees. Several states have adopted it.

Investment in awareness. Many samples came from apiaries close to crops that could not apply fipronil. We had the suspicion that they were mixing it up. Fipronil is very efficient at killing insects. Aerial application, for example, was banned by Ibama in 2012, but to this day there are producers who disrespect it because this insecticide gives returns.

We also identified that there were a lot of application errors. Pesticides end up in the hands of untrained people. We create training for application throughout Brazil. Companies also began to require training. Today many homeowners use drones.

This didn’t eliminate the problem, but it made it better. Now, Ibama’s decision takes a further step.

X-RAY
Osmar Malaspina, 75
Graduated in Biological Sciences, he has a master’s and doctorate in Biological Sciences, focused on Zoology, from the Rio Claro Biosciences Institute at Unesp (Paulista State University). Senior professor at the Department of General and Applied Biology at the Biosciences Institute at Unesp in Rio Claro. He works in the coordination of research groups on toxic effects on bees with Leca (Laboratory of Ecotoxicology and Bee Conservation). He also carries out research on the topic with the International Commission for Plant-Pollinator Relations. Works in the training of human resources in the areas of Applied Zoology and Cellular Biology dedicated to the conservation of pollinators