[Pollinator] Fwd: The Guardian / Observer - EU Insecticide Vote

[Ladadams at aol.com]

>From the Guardian/Observer



 
 
Insecticide firms in secret bid to stop ban  that could save bees
Last-ditch lobbying to sway vote in  Brussels to halt use of killer nerve 
agents

    *   _Share _ 
(http://www.facebook.com/dialog/feed?app_id=180444840287&link=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/apr/28/europe-insecticides-ban
-save-bees&display=popup&redirect_uri=http://static-serve.appspot.com/static
/facebook-share/callback.html&show_error=false&ref=desktop) 5616  
    *   
    *   
    *   inShare24  
    *   _Email_ 
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/apr/28/europe-insecticides-ban-save-bees#)   

 
    *   _Damian Carrington_ 
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/damiancarrington)  
    *   _The  Observer_ (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/) , Saturday 27 
April 2013  
    *   _Jump to  comments (180)_ 
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/apr/28/europe-insecticides-ban-save-bees#start-of-comments)  
 
 
Bees are vital for pollination, and  scientific studies have linked 
pesticides to huge losses in their numbers.  Photograph: Sean Gallup/Getty

 
_Europe_ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/europe-news)  is on the brink  of 
a landmark ban on the world's most widely used insecticides, which have  
increasingly been linked to serious declines in bee numbers. Despite intense  
secret lobbying by British ministers and chemical companies against the ban, 
 revealed in documents obtained by the Observer, a vote in Brussels on  
Monday is expected to lead to the suspension of the nerve agents.
_Bees_ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bees)  and other _insects_ 
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/insects)  are vital for  global food 
production as they pollinate three-quarters of all crops. The _plummeting  
numbers of pollinators_ 
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/apr/05/mps-owen-paterson-suspend-bees-pesticides)  in recent years has been blamed on 
disease, loss of  habitat and, increasingly, the near ubiquitous use of 
neonicotinoid _pesticides_ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/pesticides) .
The prospect of a ban has prompted a fierce behind-the-scenes campaign.  In 
a letter released to the Observer under freedom of information  rules, the 
environment secretary, Owen Paterson, told the chemicals company  Syngenta 
last week that he was "extremely disappointed" by the _European  commission_ 
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/european-commission) 's proposed ban. He 
said that "the UK has been very active" in  opposing it and "our efforts will 
continue and intensify in the coming  days".
Publicly, ministers have expressed concern for bees, with _David  Cameron 
saying_ 
(http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130424/debtext/130424-0001.htm#13042444000005) : "If we do not look after our bee 
populations, very serious  consequences will follow."
The chemical companies, which make billions from the products, have also  
lobbied hard, with Syngenta even threatening to sue individual _European 
Union_ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/eu)  officials  involved in publishing a 
report that found the _pesticides  posed an unacceptable risk to bees_ 
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/16/insecticide-unacceptable-dange
r-bees) , according to documents seen by the  Observer. The report, from 
the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA),  led the commission to propose a 
two-year ban on three neonicotinoids. "EFSA  has provided a strong, 
substantive and scientific case for the suspension," a  commission spokesman said.
A series of high-profile scientific studies has _linked  neonicotinoids to 
huge losses_ 
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/29/crop-pesticides-honeybee-decline)  in the number of queens produced and big  increases 
in "disappeared" bees – those that fail to return from foraging  trips. 
Pesticide manufacturers and UK ministers have argued that the science  is 
inconclusive and that a ban would harm food production, but  conservationists say 
harm stemming from dying pollinators is even  greater.
"It's a landmark vote," said Joan Walley MP, chairwoman of parliament's  
green watchdog, the environmental audit committee, whose _recent  report_ 
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/apr/05/mps-owen-paterson-suspend-bees
-pesticides)  on pollinators condemned the government's "extraordinary  
complacency". Walley said: "You have to have scientific evidence, but you also  
have to have the precautionary principle – that's the heart of this  
debate."
A ban has been supported by _petitions  signed by millions of people_ 
(http://www.avaaz.org/en/hours_to_save_the_bees/?slideshow)  and Paterson has 
received 80,000 emails, an  influx that he described as a "_cyber-attack_ 
(http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2013/03/19/mp-owen-paterson-bombarded-by-80000
-bee-e-mails/) ".  "The impact of neonicotinoids on the massive demise of 
our bees is clear, yet  Paterson seems unable to escape the haze of sloppy 
science and lobbying by  powerful pesticide giants," said Iain Keith of the 
campaign group Avaaz.  "Seventy per cent of British people want these poisons 
banned. Paterson must  reconsider or send the bees to chemical Armageddon." 
Andrew Pendleton of  Friends of the Earth said a ban would be "a historic 
moment in the fight to  save our bees".
A spokeswoman for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs  
said: "As the proposal currently stands we could not support an outright ban. 
 We have always been clear that a healthy bee population is our top 
priority,  that's why decisions need to be taken using the best possible scientific 
 evidence and we want to work with the commission to achieve this. Any 
action  taken must be proportionate and not have any unforeseen knock-on  
effects."
"This plan is motivated by a quite understandable desire to save the  
beleaguered bee and concern about a serious decline in other important  
pollinator species," said the government's chief scientific adviser, Sir Mark  
Walport, "but it is based on a misreading of the currently available  evidence." 
He said the EC plan was a serious "mistake".
Julian Little, a spokesman for Bayer Cropscience, said: "Call me an  
optimist, but I still believe the commission will see sense. There is so much  
field evidence to demonstrate safe use [and] an increasing number of member  
states who reject the apparent drive towards museum agriculture in the  
European Union." However, Bulgaria is the only nation known to have changed  its 
voting intention and it _will  reverse its opposition_ 
(http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/04/22/bulgaria-bees-pesticides-idUKL6N0D91CB20130422) .
The chemical industry has mounted an increasingly desperate lobbying  
effort against a ban on neonicotinoids, which have been in use for more than a  
decade. In March the top producers, Syngenta and Bayer, proposed a plan to  
support bee health, including planting more flowering margins around fields  
and monitoring for neonicotinoids.
However, the private lobbying began much earlier with a series of  letters, 
obtained by _Corporate  Europe Observatory_ 
(http://corporateeurope.org/publications/pesticides-against-pollinators)  and given to the Observer, which 
were sent to  commissioners in the summer of 2012, after France had proposed 
a unilateral  ban. One Syngenta executive, mentioning in passing his recent 
lunch with  Barack Obama, claimed that "a small group of activists and 
hobby bee-keepers"  were behind that campaign for a ban. Another letter claims, 
without citing  evidence, that the production of key crops would fall by "up 
to 40%".
At that time, the European Crop Protection Association – of which  Syngenta 
and Bayer are members – welcomed the continuing EFSA evaluation. But  in 
January, as the EFSA prepared to issue the damning verdict of its experts,  
the industry immediately turned on it. Syngenta's lawyers demanded last-minute 
 changes to a press release to prevent "serious damage to the integrity of 
our  product and reputation" and threatened legal action.
The EFSA stood its ground, prompting Syngenta to demand all documents,  
including handwritten ones, relating to the EFSA's decision and the names of  
individuals involved. A month later, it told EFSA officials it was 
considering  the "identity of specific defendants" for possible court action. On a 
more  conciliatory note, Syngenta told the EFSA it was considering 
"large-scale"  bee-monitoring studies to "close data gaps", despite previous claims its  
product had been introduced only after "the _most stringent  regulatory 
work_ (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21366547) ". Critics have 
condemned companies for keeping trial data  secret.
A spokesman for Syngenta said: "No evidence from the field has ever been  
presented that these pesticides actually damage bee health, with the case  
against them resting on a few studies which identify some highly theoretical  
risks. Regardless of the outcome, we will continue our work with anyone who  
shares our goal of improving bee health, which is vital for sustainable  
agriculture as well as the future of our business."
In the _first  commission vote in March_ 
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/15/bee-harming-pesticides-escape-european-ban) , 13 countries 
supported a ban, nine opposed it  and five, including the UK and Germany, 
abstained, which meant there was not a  sufficient majority for or against 
under voting rules, which give larger  nations more votes. The result is likely 
to be repeated on Monday, meaning  that the commission would step in and it 
is determined to see a ban in  place.The chemical industry has warned that 
a ban on neonicotinoids would lead  to the return of older, more harmful 
pesticides and crop losses. But  campaigners point out that this has not 
happened during temporary suspensions  in France, Italy and Germany and that the 
use of natural pest predators and  crop rotation can tackle problems.
Professor David Goulson, a bee expert at the University of Sussex whose  
research has found harmful effects from neonicotinoids, said: "There is now a  
very substantial body of scientific evidence suggesting that this class of  
insecticides is impacting on health of wild bees, and perhaps other 
_wildlife_ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/wildlife)  too. It is  time for 
the EU's politicians to take a responsible position and support this  ban."




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sonic.net/pipermail/pollinator/attachments/20130429/63b1ebfd/attachment.html>