European Opposition to Neonicotinoid Contamination of Farmed Salmon - is BMK08 (Imidacloprid) dead in the water?

A vote later today by the European Parliament's Environment Committee may severely impede the passage for the regulatory approval of Imidacloprid - dubbed the 'Novichok for insects' - or even leave it dead in the water @WeAreBenchmark @FerdOwner https://t.co/FnsWTQ4Xw8 #BMK08 pic.twitter.com/PbJHYNxuPh
— Don Staniford (@TheGAAIA) May 28, 2021

Have Norwegian-owned Benchmark - the company behind a plan to unleash the banned neonicotinoid Imidacloprid (BMK08) in salmon farming - jumped the gun in claiming that an MRL (Maximum Residue Limit) for Imidacloprid in farmed salmon has been "ratified by EU law"? A vote later today by the European Parliament's Environment Committee may severely impede the passage for the regulatory approval of Imidacloprid or even leave it dead in the water.

Last month (16 April 2021), Benchmark reported via a press release published by the London Stock Exchange:

Fish Farming Expert dutifully reported (16 April 2021):

Yesterday (27 May 2021), an article published in The Guardian dubbed Imidacloprid as "Novichok for insects".

"It’s like the wild west" said @DaveGoulson "These chemicals are incredibly poisonous – the novichok for insects. It takes a billionth of a gram to harm aquatic life, so even tiny traces would have major impacts on marine life" @guardian @WeAreBenchmark https://t.co/OzouYaXCEk
— Don Staniford (@TheGAAIA) May 27, 2021

Significantly, The Guardian article cited opposition led by the European Greens to the setting of an MRL for Imidacloprid in farmed salmon:

The opposition motion dated yesterday (27 May 2021) - and voted on later today not yesterday as reported in The Guardian - is spearheaded by Grace O'Sullivan MEP. The resolution calls on the Commission to: Repeal the Implementing Regulation and submit a new draft to the committee and include imidacloprid in the list set out in Annex IV for which no maximum levels can be fixed for aquatic use; Ensure consistency with the Transparency Regulation where the risk assessment is undertaken by agencies other than EFSA; Calls for time-cumulative, peer reviewed eco-toxicological testing for non-target species and a Revision 2001/82/EC vis-à-vis the protection of biodiversity, protecting the aquatic environment, taking account of animal welfare and non-target organisms and microorganisms; To undertake a fitness check of the risk assessment process to establish MRLs for vet meds in foodstuffs of animal origin:

The opposition motion includes:

Download the opposition motion in full online here

European Greens oppose use of the banned neonicotinoid Imidacloprid (BMK08) in salmon farming @WeAreBenchmark @FerdOwner
"Environmental damage & Ecocide" cited in scientific opposition to a toxic chemical dubbed 'Novichok for insects' @DaveGoulson @ZoeZebedee @GraceOSllvn pic.twitter.com/1VwlGBZ27E
— Don Staniford (@TheGAAIA) May 28, 2021

The turbid political waters of toxic chemicals and European licensing - as well as the secrecy surrounding Benchmark's BMK08 - does not make it easy to see what's going on here.

Zoe Dingwall, policy advisor for Environment, Public Health & Food Safety, at the European Greens told Scottish Salmon Watch earlier this week:

"Europe has some of the highest food standards in the world. Maximum Residue Levels are set into EU law max permitted safe levels of chemical residues that are in our food chains food such as pesticides or herbicides sprayed into crops. The new transparency regulation (EU) 2019/1381 is all about promoting transparency in food chain risk assessments which is usually conducted by the European Food Standards Agency (EFSA) however on a few rare occasions, when the chemical residues are related to Veterinary medicine, the risk assessment is conducted by the Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products (CVMP) which is part of the European Medicines Agency.

Legislation in the EU can be established in a number of ways and usually the European Parliament has a 'veto right' (right to scrutinise and to object). However, veterinary medicines risk assessment for a Maximimum Residue Level (MRL) is established by way of an 'Implementing Act' where the European Parliament has no veto right. In 2018 EFSA banned the use of imidacloprid outdoors use on crops due to it known toxicity to bees.

However imidacloprid is still permitted to be used as a common pet flea treatment for cats and dogs. Because it is already has been permitted to be used as a veterinary medicine, it only requires an application from the interested party (probably a representative of Cleantreat) to submit an application to the EMA and make their representations. We do not know what these representations are or the scientific studies on which the authorisation to grant the MRL for use in fin fish as our requests for this information was denied – this is completely unacceptable to the European Parliament

Furthermore as the four major salmon producing countries are non-EU Member States it will be impossible for the EU to assess the adequacy of controls

Greens/EFA group tabled a motion for resolution calling for the full scientific opinion and the studies that it was based on to be made available. We also point out that scientific studies need to be independent, peer-reviewed, time-cumulative (long term) to properly assess the impact of these chemical on the environment, animal welfare and biodiversity. The nine page document lists the inconsistencies with EU law as well as including scientific studies that conclude that imidaclopid should not be used in the aquatic environment due to its toxicity to non-target organisms. who have a democratic right and the rights of European citizens to know what chemical substances are being used in the food that they consume.

Other inconsistencies outlined in the resolution relate to the significant amount of EU law relating to the risk assessment process for pesticides (used on crops) and minimum requirements including potentially harmful effects of chemical substances on groundwater, soil health and non-target species including micro-organisms that lives in water and the soil. We also question how the the European Chemicals Agency classifies imidacloprid as "toxic to aquatic life" and "harmful if swallowed" but the EMA is quite happy to authorise it's use in the aquatic environment - it does not seem very consistent or convincing!

We are calling on the European Commission to repeal the implementing act and include imidacloprid as a substance that should never be used in the aquatic environment. The vote will be held in the European Parliament's Committee for the Environment, public health and food safety and if adopted in Committee (this Friday) it will be put in front of the European Parliament to be formally adopted as its position on this matter."

Benchmark's lobbyists in Brussels will certainly be watching today's Committee for the Environment in the European Parliament with interest. If the vote goes against Imidacloprid, the implementing act may be repealed and the European Commission may update the risk assessment process for all veterinary medicine especially when these are used in the food chain. Benchmark's claim that it had been "ratified by EU law" is clearly misleading because it implies that the European Parliament has already endorsed the setting of the MRL when clearly that is not the case.

The European Greens argue that it's not acceptable to assess such a controversial substance in such an intransparent manner especially considering the aims of the Transparency Regulation. The resolution highlights a major inconsistency with the new Transparency Regulation (2019/1381) in that it doesn't cover foodstuffs of animal origin (when the pesticide residue is a veterinary medicine assessed by the EMA and that it is inconsistent with Union Law and with the ECHA assessment report that categorises imidacloprid is "dangerous for the environment" and "very toxic to aquatic life".

There is growing scientific opposition to the use of Imidicloprid in both terrestrial agriculture and salmon farming. Francisco Sánchez-Bayo, an environmental scientist and ecologist at the University of Sydney, said:

"Imidacloprid is extremely toxic to invertebrates by acute and chronic exposure, and therefore makes no sense at all to use it in the aquatic environment, where organisms are exposed continuously to residues, no matter how low they may be. The claim that imidacloprid would not enter the aquatic environment upon release of the salmon is fallacious. Due to the mobility of this chemical in water, it is practically impossible to avoid contamination of the receiving waters. Even tiny residues below 1 ppb can deplete populations of aquatic insects! For this reason, I cannot understand the need for using a product that contains imidacloprid for salmon farming. There are other chemicals used for disinfecting fish that cause less harm to the aquatic environment than imidacloprid, so why should anyone insist in using the worst chemical in the market for such a purpose?"

Professor Dave Goulson from the University of Sussex (author of 'A Sting in the Tail' and the forthcoming book 'Silent Earth') said:

"Imidacloprid has been banned from use by farmers because of the widespread environmental harm it caused, which included impacting on freshwater insects. It would be the height of foolishness to start using this potent, broad-spectrum neurotoxin in salmon farming. This proposed CleanTreat® system claims to entirely remove Imidacloprid from the water returned to the sea, but this clearly needs to be tested by an independent laboratory. Imidacloprid is extremely toxic to a broad range of invertebrates, with concentrations of less than 1 part per billion enough to harm aquatic life, so even tiny traces would have major impacts on marine life."