How the pesticide lobby impacts bee protections

A new report details the pesticide industry’s outsized role in weakening and delaying bee-protection plans across the country.

|
Jens Meyer/AP/File
A bumble-bee rests on a flower in Erfurt, central Germany.

Last week, Friends of the Earth (FoE) released a report, titled "Buzz Kill: How the Pesticide Industry is Clipping the Wings of Bee Protection Efforts Across the U.S." The report, by Christopher Cook and Tiffany Finck-Haynes, details the pesticide industry’s outsized role in weakening and delaying bee protection plans across the country.

Bees play a vital role in the food system, pollinating one-third of all foods. But bees are dying at an alarming rate. According to an estimate by the United Nations, 40 percent of pollinator species are facing extinction globally. In the United States, honeybee populations are dropping at an average of 30 to 40 percent annually. 

The report identifies pesticides as the leading cause of the population decline in pollinators. Authors cite a growing body of research showing that the most widely used type of insecticide, neonicotinoids, is harmful to bees’ nervous and immune systems, as well as their foraging and navigation abilities. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup® products and the most heavily used herbicide, has been tied to the decline in the monarch butterfly population.

In response to the dangerous and undeniable rise in honeybee losses, state and federal officials have called for regulatory reforms. But, according to the report, agrochemical companies, including Bayer, Syngenta, and Monsanto, are fighting against proposed pesticide reforms by investing millions in heavy lobbying, shuffling employees between regulatory agencies and agrochemical companies, and influencing scientific research to blame honeybee losses on factors besides pesticides. The authors say these multilayered tactics are designed to manufacture doubt about the science on pesticides and delay meaningful action on pesticide regulation.

As a result of industry efforts, a patchwork of vague state policies has emerged instead of clear-cut federal regulations. These state policies, or Pollinator Protection Plans, offer mostly voluntary pollinator protections and don’t require pesticide applicators to report where they apply pesticides. They also lack measurable metrics to evaluate compliance. The authors of the FoE report also point out that during the state planning processes, pesticide companies were considered important stakeholders, while beekeepers were systematically disregarded.

Despite industry efforts, some local governments and states have succeeded in limiting neonicotinoid use, notes the report. More than 25 municipalities and universities across the U.S. have restricted the use of the pesticide. In early 2016, Maryland and Connecticut became the first states to restrict consumer use of neonicotinoids. But Cook and Finck-Haynes find that stronger measures are still needed to protect pollinator health.

“Our government is giving more weight to the pesticide industry than to protecting bees, beekeepers, our food supply, and the environment,” says author Tiffany Finck-Haynes. “It is critical for policymakers to stand up for the long-term health of our food system, not the short-term profits of companies that manufacture a leading cause of bee declines.”

This article originally appeared on Food Tank.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to How the pesticide lobby impacts bee protections
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Bite/2016/0630/How-the-pesticide-lobby-impacts-bee-protections
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe