Skip to main content

From peregrines to european starlings

A federal court has ordered the US Environmental Protection Agency to ban the pesticide chlorpyrifos because it is harmful to human health.   This is good news for the environment as much as it is for human safety.

From peregrine falcons to European starlings

Just as peregrine falcons help alert us to the harmful effects of organochlorine pesticides,  European starlings alert us to the harmful effects of organophosphates.   The studies of these birds demonstrate the harmful effects on wildlife.



In 1973 I was a student of Zoology at Manchester University.   For my very first assignment, my tutor gave me the name of a species,  the peregrine falcon, Falco perigranus, and a set of dates, and asked me to do some research in the library and write a short report.

During the 1940s and 1950s, Derrick Ratcliff of the British Nature Conservancy noted a sharp decline in peregrine falcons across Europe. Soon after this observation correlations between eggshell thickness and reproductive failure in these falcons, other raptors, and fish-eating birds were discovered. The sharp fall in the population of falcons was due to the effects of a pesticide, DDT on egg-shell thickness.  The egg-shells were breaking, causing the dramatic fall in reproductive success and thus the numbers of birds.

Organochlorine pesticides

The discovery that organochlorine pesticides could reduce eggshell thickness in raptorial species is perhaps the most well-known and extensively documented event in wildlife toxicology.  These findings and evidence of human exposure to DDT led to a ban on their use in the United States in 1973, the year I started my studies in zoology, and in Europe in the 1980s.  Sadly, DDT is still used in pesticides in many parts of the developing world.

As a student, this story excited me because it showed the practical importance of pure nature research and conservation.  It continues to inspire me to this day.  We, humans, owe a great deal to the peregrine falcon! 

In this case, action was taken to ban these harmful organochlorine pesticides.  Now, studies reveal the harmful effects of other pesticides,  including organophosphates. 

Our understanding of organophosphates and the way they work as neurotoxins should at least have raised alarm bells for their effects on wildlife and on humans.  Any substance designed to be neurotoxic is likely to be just that.   It begs a question, why these alarm bells have been ignored. 

Assurances were given that these pesticides are used in very low doses in crop pesticides and the residues do not have a prolonged life.  Yet, evidence has accumulated for its harmful effects on wildlife beyond the 'pest' species.  

These pesticides are not specifically targeted at 'pests'.  They make little or no distinction between 'pest' bugs and non-pest bugs, or between bugs and other animal species. 

They work by disrupting brain function, and as such are particularly harmful to the developing brains of young animals, including human children.  They disrupt behaviour and cognition.   This is now recognised in the court judgement in the United States. 

In the northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), for example, low doses of organophosphate are found to affect the ability to avoid predation.

European Starlings

In the 1980s, studies with European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) demonstrated reduced reproduction in birds nesting where organophosphate pesticides are used.   During the breeding-season starlings feed primarily on terrestrial invertebrates that live in direct contact with pesticides present in the soil. This was evidence of these pesticides affecting the food chain.

Onus should be on the agrochemical industry to show they are not harmful

Why then does it take so long for these effects demonstrated in the 1980s to impact policies?  Why have these pesticides not been banned sooner?   We have known they are neurotoxic.  They were designed to be so.  Their effects on wildlife were in large part predictable and predicated on their impact on the brains of animals. 

The problem lies in the balance between the ever growing demand for food, the agrochemical business, and the effects on wildlife.  In that balance the cost to wildlife has been ignored.  The agrochemical business is a powerful lobby.

The process of approval of pesticides needs to change.  The agrochemical industry must demonstrate that they are safe before approval is given, and not the other way around.  They should demonstrate the effects on wildlife and on the environment with systematic studies.  Else it takes many decades of poorly funded research to accumulate data showing such harms.  We should not rely on this suck it and see approach.

About the author: Ray Noble is a certified biologist and Fellow of the Royal Society of Biology

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As