Corporate Europe Observatory

Exposing the power of corporate lobbying in the EU

Pesticide industry - the future of bees

  • Dansk
  • Nederlands
  • English
  • Suomi
  • Français
  • Deutsch
  • Ελληνικά
  • Italiano
  • Bokmål
  • Polski
  • Portuguese
  • Română
  • Slovenščina
  • Español
  • Svenska

Industry “experts” are undermining an EU review of the regulations of pesticides and putting Europe’s bee population further at risk, according to new research from the European Beekeeping Coordination and Corporate Europe Observatory published today (Tuesday) [1].



The report comes ahead of a vote by MEPs (23rd – 24th November) on a resolution requiring independent research into bee mortality and a revision of EU rules governing risk assessments of bees' exposure to pesticides [2].

 

According to the research, proposed new safety tests for pesticides used in the European Union fail to take into account the way in which so-called systemic pesticides can build up in bees and their food supplies.

 

Bee numbers have been declining across Europe by up to 30 per cent a year, threatening food supplies because of the vital role played by bee pollination [3]. A number of different factors are thought to be to blame.

 

The report found that a number of “experts” from pesticide companies are involved in defining which tests are required to verify the safety of new pesticides under the EU pesticides directive [4].

 

Because the EU institutions do not have their own expertise on bees, the Commission has outsourced advice on new guidelines to the International Committee of Plant-Bee Relationship (ICPBR), which has set up a working group to look at the impacts of pesticides on bees. Representatives from pesticide manufacturers including Bayer Crop Science, Syngenta and BASF all sit on this group and it is responsible for designing and recommending the methodologies for the risk assessments of bees' exposure to pesticides which are then approved by the EU institutions.

 

Francesco Panella, professional beekeeper and spokesperson for the European Beekeeping Coordination explained:
“There is evidence that suggests pesticides may be playing a key part in the high death rate among bees. Given the importance of the bee population, we believe the cumulative impacts of pesticides must be investigated under adequate safety procedures. But experts from industry have vetoed these proposals and said that there is no reason for concern.”

 

These ‘experts’ have put forward safety tests which would allow pesticides that destroy as many as a third of bees in a hive to be classified as safe – a rate of loss that would allow a rapid decline in bee numbers and make bee keeping unviable.

 

Francesco Panella continued:
“Industry is being allowed to set its own rules and the result will be disastrous for Europe’s bee population.”

 

“It is essential for our environment, our flora and our fauna that the Commission and member states ensure that the expertise on which they base their decisions is not biased by companies’ profit motive. It is not only our bees and beekeeping sector that are at stake, but our environment.”

 

Contact:
Noa Simon Delso,  simon@cari.be, tel: +32 486 973 920
Nina Holland, nina@corporateeurope.org, tel: +32 497 389 632

 

Notes:
[1] Is the future of bees in the hands of the pesticide lobby? European Beekeeping Coordination and Corporate Europe Observatory, November 2010
See http://www.corporateeurope.org/agribusiness/content/2010/11/future-bees

[2] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/en/pressroom/content/20101025IPR90080/

[3] The peak of new bee colony collapses happened in spring 2008 in France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia  where there was found to be a high load of neurotoxic pesticides in the atmosphere. Neurotoxic pesticides include neonicotinoids (nicotine-based) which are applied “systemically” to the plant – by coating the seeds, injecting the plant or irrigating with the pesticide. This results in the presence of the pesticide throughout the plant, including in the pollen.

[4] The toxicity and other characteristics of pesticides and their active substances must be evaluated in order to get authorisation for marketing in the EU. In accordance with European Directive 91/414/EEC, the pesticide active substances are approved at European level. The annexes of this directive (Annex II and III of Council Directive 91/414 of 15 July 1991) is currently under review.

Related issues: 
 

Polluters in Peru blog

CEO, Compassion in World Farming, ARC2020, Friends of the Earth Europe and Via Campesina co-publish a brochure spelling out the threats of a potental Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) to the future of good food and farming. Proponents of TTIP argue that it will increase trade leading to economic growth and jobs. But opponents have voiced many concerns, including its impact on food and farming on both sides of the Atlantic and its potential to underm ine a more sustainable food system. This brochure explains how TTIP will promote the industrial model of food and farming, further threatening the survival of small family farms, local food initiatives, standards for healthy and safe food, animal welfare, the environment, and public health.
An analysis of the revised independence policy of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). More reworded than revised, actually.
Will EFSA become more transparent, and to lobbyists or scientists? After its public consultation on its draft transparency policy, the Authority must now choose.
This must-watch film is now online. The film shows how corporations and actors within the Commission are teaming up to demolish a major piece of public health legislation.
A new draft EU directive currently looked at by the European Parliament wants to protect companies' "trade secrets", but uses definitions so large and exceptions so weak that it could seriously endanger the work of journalists, whistle-blowers, unionists and researchers as well as severely limiting corporate accountability. We publish a joint statement together with several other groups for the directive to be radically amended.
In the face of a disastrous Lima Outcome for local communities, their environments and the climate, many of the climate justice groups attending COP20 released a joint statement in response to what countries had agreed to, as well setting our own agenda.
The UN climate talks in Lima, COP20, have had the pervasive influence of business all over them. Yet despite this, business is still not happy with the influence it has on the talks and wants a greater role.
As the UN climate talks – COP20 – wrap up in Lima, CEO took part in a press conference to reflect on what two weeks of negotiations mean for climate justice and the road to Paris. Organised by the Institute of Climate Action and Theory, CEO was joined by with Michael Dorsey (board member of Sierra Club) and Jagoda Munic (Chair of Friends of the Earth International).

Alternative Trade Mandate

Corporate Europe Forum