{"id":15079,"date":"2015-12-03T19:00:57","date_gmt":"2015-12-03T19:00:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.honeybeehaven.org\/2015\/12\/03\/court-sides-with-bees-says-no-to-pesticide\/"},"modified":"2015-12-03T19:00:57","modified_gmt":"2015-12-03T19:00:57","slug":"court-sides-with-bees-says-no-to-pesticide","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.honeybeehaven.org\/court-sides-with-bees-says-no-to-pesticide\/","title":{"rendered":"Court sides with bees, says no to pesticide"},"content":{"rendered":"
Last week, the federal courts took a stand for bees and beekeepers. In their written decision<\/a>, the judges said EPA had approved a new neonicotinoid pesticide — sulfoxaflor — without adequate review. The court ordered the Dow product be pulled from the market.<\/p> The judges also took EPA to task for saying yes to the pesticide despite strong evidence showing that the pesticide was “highly toxic” to bees. This is a real and important, much-needed win for pollinators.<\/p> Greg Loarie, the lead attorney for the national beekeeper groups that brought the suit — Pollinator Stewardship Council, American Honey Producers Association and American Beekeepers Federation — explains the ruling's significance<\/a>:<\/p> The Court's decision to overturn approval of this bee-killing pesticide is incredible news for bees, beekeepers and all of us who enjoy the healthy fruits, nuts, and vegetables that rely on bees for pollination.”<\/p><\/blockquote> Rewind to 2013. EPA approved the insecticide, a close cousin to bee-harming neonicotinoids already under scrutiny, despite strong opposition from both beekeepers and the scientific community. Sulfoxaflor was approved for use as a foliar or spray treatment for a variety of crops, including many that bees pollinate — and that end up on our plates.<\/p> Beekeeper Jeff Anderson signaled<\/a> the urgency of the situation: "EPA continues to exacerbate the pressures on beekeepers, whose operations are on the edge of collapse." Beekeepers, including Anderson, then filed suit. And PAN and partner farming groups voiced strong support<\/a>. <\/p> In last week’s ruling, the court found that the EPA relied on "flawed and limited data" to approve the registration of sulfoxaflor, and cited the “precariousness of bee populations.” Perhaps most importantly, they ruled that the agency's approval was not supported by "substantial evidence."<\/p> What happens now? In a worst-case scenario, EPA officials could continue to ignore the evidence and use its old trick of “conditionally”<\/a> registering the pesticide, keeping it on the market for years before a thorough review. But that is likely to be increasingly difficult given that bee-harming pesticides are now squarely in the limelight.<\/p> Neonicotinoids with difficult to pronounce names — clothianidin, dinotefuran, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam for example — have been linked to bee declines for years. EPA recently approved new pesticides that act on the same receptors in bee brains, including flupyradifurone and cyantraniliprole.<\/p> When all is said and done, the approval of sulfoxaflor reflects the classic problem we call the pesticide treadmill<\/a>. As more science underscores the harms of a pesticide, manufacturers shift to newer, less studied products. It can take regulators years to catch up and respond with appropriate and robust protections. Our precious bee populations don't have this kind of time.<\/p> While some systemic insecticides like sulfoxaflor are sprayed, an even greater number are applied as seed treatments. As the agency rushed to approve Dow’s latest bee-harming pesticide, it was failing to focus on the most pressing challenges facing bees and beekeepers.<\/p>The "precariousness of bee populations"<\/strong><\/h3>
Focus, EPA. Focus.<\/strong><\/h3>