Following the European Commission's announcement that it will introduce tight restrictions on neonicotinoid pesticides before the summer, NGOs in the United States are lobbying the country's Environmental Protection Agency to introduce similar legislation.

image expired

The Commission will forbid use of neonicotinoids on plants attractive to bees; the decision was made after an investigation by the European Food Safety Authority concluded that the pesticides present an unacceptable risk to bees, and possibly other insect pollinators, which are suffering massive declines in Europe and the United States.

On 5th March, the US EPA will hold its 'Pollinator Summit,' over the course of which it will discuss the effects of pesticide use on the health of bees. In the run-up to the summit, EPA said it has been consulting with stakeholders from environment groups, beekeeping organisations, state agencies and agchem companies, as well as "working aggressively to protect honey bees and other pollinators from pesticide risks through regulatory, voluntary and research programs."

EPA said that, with a view to protecting bees and other pollinators, presentations made at the summit will focus on three areas:

• Actions to reduce dust during planting
• Seed treatment technology designed to minimize pesticide loss during planting, and
• Best agricultural management practices to reduce exposure to bees.

The Agency has also unveiled plans to fast-track a review of neonicotinoid pesticides, in light of EFSA's findings. In the US, up to 90 percent of maize seeds (the country's largest arable crop) are treated with neonicotinoid seed coating prior to planting. Before EFSA released its opinion in January this year, upwards of 30 peer-reviewed, independent scientific studies had reached similar conclusions.  

The US Center for Food Safety has urged EPA to follow the EU Commission's example, by curtailing the most dangerous uses of the three insecticides named by EFSA - Clothianidin and imidacloprid (manufactured by Bayer CropScience), and thiamethoxam (Syngenta). The Centre called on EPA "to consider EFSA's findings and suspend use [of neonicotinoids] until the health, safety and environmental questions raised by the EFSA research are fully answered."

Center for Food Safety attorney Peter Jenkins said, "EPA cannot continue to condone the use of chemicals responsible for the wholesale killing of our pollinators and the irreparable damage of the U.S. food supply. EFSA's analysis confirms the argument beekeepers and environmental and consumer groups have made for the last six years: these systemic insecticides are deadly to honey bees and the entire invertebrate food chain. We need to listen to their findings and return to Integrated Pest Management."

Also pushing for a suspension, pending re-evaluation of the evidence on neonicotinoids, is the Pesticide Action Network. The group's North America spokesperson Paul Towers said, "Independent science increasingly points to pesticides, especially neonicotinoids, as a critical factor in honeybee declines. Europe’s action, based on this growing body of research, should spur EPA to impose new restrictions on these pesticides."

In January, shortly after the EFSA released its findings, Commissioner Tonio Borg urged member states to heed the agency's findings, though he said a blanket ban of neonicotinoids would be out of the question. He announced plans to suspend neonicotinoid treatment on crops that are considered attractive to bees (most flowering crops), but the UK government, which is carrying out its own investigation into the relationship between bees and the controversial chemicals, is unlikely to act until the Commission forces its hand.

In January, Frederic Vincent, spokesperson for consumer health Commissioner Borg said, "We hope the regulation can be adopted before March," and at the latest by the beginning of July.

However, manufacturers of the chemicals in question stand by their claims that disease and loss of habitat pose a greater threat to bees than their pesticides. Bayer has accused EFSA of using incomplete evidence in forming its opinion; EFSA categorically denies this.