Bayers is suing Europe for saving the bees..

After Europe banned the use of neonicotinoids earlier this year. Bayers has decided to sue the European Union and try and over turn the ban.. even though neonicotinoids have been linked to bee deaths. There really is something wrong with these people. The science says these chemicals are bad for bees and they are not wanted in Europe..

Hopefully Europe will not be bossed around..

Wow. Bayer has just sued the European Commission to overturn a ban on the pesticides that are killing millions of bees around the world. A huge public push won this landmark ban only months ago -- and we can't sit back and let Big Pesticide overturn it while the bees vanish. Bayer and Syngenta, two of the world's largest chemical corporations, claim that the ban is "unjustified" and "disproportionate." But clear scientific evidence shows their products are behind the massive bee die-off that puts our entire food chain in peril.

action.sumofus.org...

Last I heard neonicotinoids were a suspect in the bee die offs but science couldn't say with any certainty that it was the source of the problem. Either way it is prudent to stop using these chemicals and maybe let the bees be the judge given their vast importance to the food chain.

Yes, how dare we put aside a corporation's monetary interests ONLY to protect a potentially dangerous insect...

...nevermind that, were said dangerous insect to disappear, a huge chunk of the ecosystem would collapse...ABSOLUTELY no loss in that...well at least not a MONETARY one...

The suit is over the legality of the Commission restricting the use of neonicotinoids in spite of the fact that there was was not a sufficient majority among the members. It would seem that if there was "clear scientific evidence" that neonicotinoids were to blame for CCD the vote would have been stronger.

The decision was based on three reports, each on a different pesticide. Some examples of the conclusions:

Overall, there were no treatment-related bee losses over the 3-year monitoring period. It is acknowledged that this type of trial is difficult to conduct, nevertheless the FR expert believed that the results are useful to indicate no treatment-related effects on bee hives.

www.efsa.europa.eu...

It was also noted that the monitoring data are only relevant to the specific Member State (and to the GAPs approved in that Member State) and not to all authorised uses, environmental and agronomic conditions in the EU. Overall, it was considered that monitoring data are of limited use for risk assessment but may be useful to provide feedback for risk managers to consider prevention measures.

www.efsa.europa.eu...

Furthermore, it is difficult to link exposure and observed effects in monitoring data (i.e. causality). It was also noted that monitoring data may not provide a complete picture as, in some cases, not all parameters are investigated (e.g. use of veterinary medicines). It was also noted that the monitoring data are only relevant to the specific Member State (and to the GAPs approved in that Member State) and not to all authorised uses, environmental and agronomic conditions in the EU. Overall, it was considered that monitoring data are of limited use for risk assessment but may be useful to provide feedback for risk managers to consider prevention measures.

www.efsa.europa.eu...

No wonder there was no majority. The studies all just say "We didn't see any problems with bees that can be linked to the use of these pesticides."

If this giant corporation manages to bully Europe into submission, it would spell disaster for the bees.

action.sumofus.org...

It would seem that it was the Commission who was the bully, acting unilaterally. In any case, there is no "ban" in place, but a restriction on the use of the pesticides.

The proposal restricts the use of 3 neonicotinoids (clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiametoxam) for seed treatment, soil application (granules) and foliar treatment on bee attractive plants and cereals.

In addition, the remaining authorised uses are available only to professionals.

Exceptions will be limited to the possibility to treat bee-attractive crops in greenhouses, in open-air fields only after flowering.

ec.europa.eu...

If the European union wants to restrict an insecticide because they don't feel it's use is in the best interest of their citizens, they have a right to. I can't even see how Bayer can be allowed to sue them. We need to make changes in our laws. It is not like the European Union is saying Bayer can't sell them to others like Dumb Americans who are blind as bats. We banned DDT with less evidence than that in the seventies. Of course DDT was considered safe before we banned it. My father used to spray it in his fields, I was with him. He died of brain cancer at the age of 50, a year after selling the farm.

reply to post by rickymouse

If the European union wants to ban an insecticide because they don't feel it's use is in the best interest of their citizens, they have a right to.

1) There is no ban. There are restrictions on the use of the pesticides.
2) The number of member votes was not sufficient to pass the proposal so the Commission acted on their own.

I can't even see how Bayer can be allowed to sue them.

Anyone can sue anyone for anything but since the reports on which the decision were based were completely inconclusive Bayer (and Syngenta) probably have a pretty good case. It's probably moot though, it will be in court beyond the 2 year limit on the restrictions.


Sorry about your father but you know that people who weren't working with DDT also get brain cancer, right?

Well the thread title is misleading to say the least. it did the trick of getting me to open and read it but I don't care for tricks.

Looks like there is no ban as well so I will be moving on.

Originally posted by minkmouse
Last I heard neonicotinoids were a suspect in the bee die offs but science couldn't say with any certainty that it was the source of the problem. Either way it is prudent to stop using these chemicals and maybe let the bees be the judge given their vast importance to the food chain.

Of course science can't say w/ any certainty...they never can when it comes to their own pocket-book. There's a difference in their world between certainty and $$$.

reply to post by Phage


You're right, there is no proof that he got brain cancer from the ddt or the other stuff he sprayed on the fields. One of the deciding factors on banning ddt in this country was from the incidences of brain cancer in farm workers in Maine though. It was never proven that those tumors were positively created by ddt either, yet the relationship was used as evidence to ban it.

Shortly after I posted my article I edited it because I saw I had put the word ban in it instead of restricted. You must have grabbed it before I edited it. I changed it within a few minutes, your article wasn't even posted yet when I had finished editing it, you must have been working on it.

Bayer is no longer an independent company. It's owned and operated by Siemens, which worries quite a bit about regulation, as well as reputation in the industry. I'm not saying the original post is incorrect, just that Bayer/Siemens would be treading on dangerous grounds doing anything unpopular with either government regulations or the public. It's a risk I doubt they're willing to take for what would be a very small profit relatively. I encourage people to voice opposition to anything they feel is wrong, corporations with either listen out of ethics or more likely, out of profits.

Originally posted by rickymouse
If the European union wants to restrict an insecticide because they don't feel it's use is in the best interest of their citizens, they have a right to. I can't even see how Bayer can be allowed to sue them. We need to make changes in our laws. It is not like the European Union is saying Bayer can't sell them to others like Dumb Americans who are blind as bats.

edit on 1-9-2013 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)

This 'dumb American', who is also a biochemist, thinks the credibility of your post just died with this remark. Also, Bayer was a German company bought by a German company.

Maybe the restrictions are a way to determine if there are any improvements in the bee population. I think it is a wise move considering the people of the EU generally are suspicious of these chemicals anyway. A 2 year restriction may not be long enough to clearly see if there are any changes to the bees but I guess it is a start. I think it is a fair move. I am glad the EU are seen to be at least a little concerned with this stuff.

The GM crops in Italy have really died off prematurely this year, in this area at least. I have seen this for myself. The crops are brown and dying. Yet other crops are fine. All the GM fields are clearly marked and fenced off. Luckily there are not too many of them.

The only GM stuff people are not objecting to here is the hemp fields. Italy is now allowing the farming of Hemp. Heavily restricted at the moment but very wise I think. Who knows, maybe soon we can grow the female hemp variety

Originally posted by rickymouse
If the European union wants to restrict an insecticide because they don't feel it's use is in the best interest of their citizens, they have a right to. I can't even see how Bayer can be allowed to sue them. We need to make changes in our laws. It is not like the European Union is saying Bayer can't sell them to others like Dumb Americans who are blind as bats. We banned DDT with less evidence than that in the seventies. Of course DDT was considered safe before we banned it. My father used to spray it in his fields, I was with him. He died of brain cancer at the age of 50, a year after selling the farm.

edit on 1-9-2013 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)

Hey man, no need for insults. Im european not american and insults like these reflect on all of us. Show a little more respect please. Im sure if you were face to face with these 'dumb americans' you would never say that to them.

Sorry to hear about your Father.

Originally posted by greavsie1971
Maybe the restrictions are a way to determine if there are any improvements in the bee population.

Which could possibly show that these chemicals are causing the bees to die off.

If I were a giant corporation, I'd fight this too if there was a risk of that happening.

Seriously.if Bloomberg can ban large sodas, why can't the uk ban a poison.
Bbbadddddd uk.
Bad bad uk...

I will be boycotting all bayer products from now on.
I suggest everyone pass this on, and do the same.

reply to post by minkmouse


In the UK the Defra or whatever dept tried to carry out a test, but unfortunately for them they couldn't find an un contaminated bee hive to use as a test marker, so the UK government tried to stop the ban because of the lack of control subjects.
HELLO, if you found your control subjects were being contaminated surely thats a pointer for you, obviously not if you are the UK.

Unless its chemical weapon use by a sovereign nation, then you just know it was him that did it

reply to post by saint4God


Have you personally studied the effects of the nicotine compound on bees? Natural nicotine in tobacco smoke does not seem to hurt bees much, it actually calms bees when they smell cigarette smoke. Because it dampens their sensors is what causes the problem. It is not like the nicotine poisons them, it causes some psychological changes which cause problems with their ability to work better.

If bees were around cigarette smoke all the time, they would have the same problems as the bayer chemical sprayed in the field.

As for your assumption that I did not know that Bayer was a German Company, it is wrong. I studied the company a little. I suppose I shouldn't have said dumb, I should have said Naive. To believe a companies research instead of actually testing the products effect on things in our environment ourselves is the problem. You can't just test the chemicals using testing that we think is pertinent to what you want to see, you have to broaden the spectrum to include some side effects. I know that this means the government has to employ more of it's own microbiologists and specialists of all kinds to actually test this stuff before it is allowed, and I know Occams Razor is important in society today. But to trust the testing of things to the companies that create the chemistry is not right, even their contracted testers are contracted to test on what is supposed to be tested for and no other testing is allowed.

I understand some of this, no unauthorized testing is to be done or your company will not get future testing jobs. This is a normal part of the way it is in this country. I am not for abolishing this, just refining it to test for things that are important.

reply to post by greavsie1971


I should have said Naive, not dumb. Sorry about that.

Originally posted by minkmouse
Last I heard neonicotinoids were a suspect in the bee die offs but science couldn't say with any certainty that it was the source of the problem. Either way it is prudent to stop using these chemicals and maybe let the bees be the judge given their vast importance to the food chain.

Of course, if the EU bans these neonicotinoids and the bee populations return to normal, then Bayers will be open to lawsuits from beekeepers across the world.

It's sue or be sued.

I stopped knowingly using Bayer~Farber products after they harmed haemopheliac children in the US with HIV. Mistakes can be made but to recall the pharmiceuticals to resale them to the French was beyond reproach.

INFECTED PLASMA