This disapproval appears to derive largely from the knowledge that these pesticides are harmful to bees. There are, however, further complexities which have been largely unnoticed or ignored by these commentators, both in support of and against this decision. This article attempts to unravel some of these complexities.
What does ‘emergency’ use mean?
Emergency use means that the pesticide may only be used where it is indispensable for protecting the crop. Even when it is applied, it will be done in a limited and controlled way, informed by an independent scientific forecast which will prove it is needed. In this case, Defra has claimed that the pesticide will only be allowed on sugar beet as it is non-flowering. There will also be controls to minimise risks to pollinators.
Why are people upset about the re-authorisation of thiamethoxam?
Those who disagree with the use of thiamethoxam mostly refer to the impacts it has on insects, and water quality. Matt Shardlow of Buglife, an environmental charity, argues ‘nothing has changed scientifically since the decision to ban neonics from use on sugar beet in 2018. They will still harm the environment’. Several studies have found that thiamethoxam has severe impacts on bees. Research has found that it can weaken the immune systems of bees, harm the development of their brains, and impair their flight. Some commentators have also argued that instead of growing crops prone to disease, farmers should instead focus on those already well adapted to the environment.
Why do some support the emergency use of the pesticide?
Virus yellows disease is having huge impacts on the ability of British farmers to grow sugar beet. Campaigners, including the NFU and British Sugar, argue that the pesticide is needed in emergencies to allow these farmers to stay afloat.
The weather
The mild weather across England last year (2020) meant that record numbers of aphids survived winter. It is these aphids that transmit virus yellows disease. As a result of the spread of this disease, some farmers are have stopped growing sugar beet for the first time in 100 years.
A nature-friendly farmer who supports the decision
Tom Clarke is a self-professed ‘nature-friendly farmer’, stating that over 15% of his farm is dedicated to enhancing nature. He supports the decision to reinstate thiamethoxam for emergency use. This is despite a general dislike of insecticides and a keen interest in seeking alternatives such as biological controllers. He points out that there are currently few alternatives, and until we have some solutions such as disease-resistant varieties, we need these pesticides. He also argues that sugar beets have provided some ecological benefits within his rotation. For example, it provides a food source for migratory swans.
Are the environmental impacts as bad as the media suggests?
Neonicotinoids are known to have severe impacts on the environment, with particular impacts for pollinators. However, sugar beet is a non-flowering plant. This means that the impacts on pollinators may be less than they would be on other crops. There will, however, be at least some effect on pollinators due to surrounding wildflowers.
Why don’t we just import sugar?
We could import sugar. However, these imports would come from countries that already use seed treatments, or from imported sugar cane. Cane plantations have also caused substantial environmental damage due to habitat removal, soil erosion, pesticides, and the high carbon footprint of exporting the resulting sugar. 
The sugar debate
An additional complexity surrounding this debate is the notion that we should be reducing our dietary intake of sugar. In this context, is a reduction in how much sugar beet is grown such a bad thing, particularly if beet farmers can grow an alternative crop on their land?
Conclusion
In conclusion, this debate is far more complicated than it first appears. Whilst there is a clear need to find alternatives to pesticides, there are several arguments which support the use of thiamethoxam in the meantime.
