Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Render

EU to ban pesticides blamed for harming bees

15 posts in this topic

Reuters) - The European Union will ban three of the world's most widely-used pesticides for two years because of fears they are linked to a plunge in the population of bees critical to the production of crops.

http://www.reuters.c...E93S0CX20130429

EU ban on pesticides linked to bee deaths moves one step closer despite UK government resistance

  • Majority of EU governments backed move fiercely resisted by UK coalition
  • UK Government under fire for opposing a ban on 'neonicotinoids'
  • Used on crops such as oil seed rape, which are attractive to bees

http://www.dailymail...resistance.html

Of course the UK has to be against it again. That's what they do. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a report on this topic on BBC, and they had a different slant, to the effect that this was overreaction, and such a ban would seriously harm British agriculture while there was no good evidence it harmed more than a small number of bees in any population. Me suspects you let a bias get in the way of just waiting to see how it turns out in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally somebody fell off the donkey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a report on this topic on BBC, and they had a different slant, to the effect that this was overreaction, and such a ban would seriously harm British agriculture while there was no good evidence it harmed more than a small number of bees in any population. Me suspects you let a bias get in the way of just waiting to see how it turns out in the end.

:)

Me suspects you let the lobbies form your conclusions.

Chemical companies and pesticide manufacturers have been lobbying just as hard - they argue that the science is inconclusive, and that a ban would harm food production.

The UK government seems to agree with the industry lobby. It objected to the proposed ban in its current form. The chief scientific adviser, Sir Mark Walport, has said restrictions on the use of pesticides should not be introduced lightly, and the idea of a ban should be dropped.

The EU moratorium will not apply to crops non-attractive to bees, or to winter cereals.

It will prohibit the sale and use of seeds treated with neonicotinoid pesticides.

And there will be a ban on the sale of neonicotinoids to amateur growers.

There have been a number of studies showing that the chemicals, made by Bayer and Syngenta, do have negative impacts on bees.

One study suggested that neonicotinoids affected the abilities of hives to produce queen bees. More recent research indicated that the pesticides damaged their brains.

But the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) argues that these studies were mainly conducted in the laboratory and do not accurately reflect field conditions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22335520

Im not gonna take the UK's word for it so whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.reuters.c...E93S0CX20130429

http://www.dailymail...resistance.html

Of course the UK has to be against it again. That's what they do. :rolleyes:

:)

Me suspects you let the lobbies form your conclusions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...europe-22335520

Im not gonna take the UK's word for it so whatever.

http://www.reuters.c...E93S0CX20130429

http://www.dailymail...resistance.html

Of course the UK has to be against it again. That's what they do. :rolleyes:

firstly i agree with anything which helps preserve the Bee population.

instead of blindly agreeing with the EU and taking the stance all the EU does is righteous and doing your best to single out the UK as the bad guy. did you even read your own link. were it says. Fifteen countries voted in favour of a ban. not enough to form a qualified majority. 8 countries voted against it. four abstained. but the EU being the EU will not take no for an answer so they'll pass it over to the unelected commission who will impose the ban anyway - beggars the question why have a vote in the first place?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

firstly i agree with anything which helps preserve the Bee population.

instead of blindly agreeing with the EU and taking the stance all the EU does is righteous and doing your best to single out the UK as the bad guy. did you even read your own link. were it says. Fifteen countries voted in favour of a ban. not enough to form a qualified majority. 8 countries voted against it. four abstained. but the EU being the EU will not take no for an answer so they'll pass it over to the unelected commission who will impose the ban anyway - beggars the question why have a vote in the first place?

Fifteen against eight happens to be a majority, and in questions regarding health and environment the simple majority is enough according to a sentence by the ECJ. In fact, to protect the health of its citizens and/or environment any country can opt out of anything the EU has decided. The days where a single country could block Brussels and then bemoan the ineffectiveness of the civil servants are over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fifteen against eight happens to be a majority, and in questions regarding health and environment the simple majority is enough according to a sentence by the ECJ. In fact, to protect the health of its citizens and/or environment any country can opt out of anything the EU has decided. The days where a single country could block Brussels and then bemoan the ineffectiveness of the civil servants are over.

im only reposting what is contained within the BBC link. note the line in bold.

Fifteen countries voted in favour of a ban - not enough to form a qualified majority. According to EU rules the Commission will now have the option to impose a two-year restriction on neonicotinoids - and the UK cannot opt out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

im only reposting what is contained within the BBC link. note the line in bold.

And they can keep on renewing the two year term ad infinitum, new rules thanks to the ECJ. (Edit: with a simple majority, that is)

Edited by questionmark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And they can keep on renewing the two year term ad infinitum, new rules thanks to the ECJ. (Edit: with a simple majority, that is)

am not surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The EU is guided by the precautionary principle in matters pertaining to the environment. It has therefore imposed a ban until the evidence suggesting an impact on bees can be verified. If the evidence subsequently doesn't stack up the ban will be lifted.

The precautionary principle is one of the most progressive guiding principles the EU applies and I am more than grateful they do in the face of vested interests.

Br Cornelius

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Strange how the EU can act so swiftly on this issue, but drag their collective feet when the UK plays by the rules but the rest of the EU doesn't.

"Illegal Chicken Cages: Lack Of Enforcement Indicates Larger European Union Policy Issues"

A dozen years after the European Union set Jan. 1, 2012 as the date to eliminate the most cramped cages to improve the living standards of egg laying hens, half of the 27 European Union nations have failed to fully comply – a flop seen as a metaphor for Europe's current state of disarray

"In all, they have been talking about it for 30 years," complained the ruddy-cheeked Pierart, who adhered to the new rules.

"Now, it shows that common ideas for everyone are still hard to come by."

"Having made this sort of investment, having been told by our government all the way along that this legislation was gold-plated, that it had to be completed by Jan. 1, we are now very disillusioned to find that substantial parts of Europe haven't complied," he said.

Even EU Consumer Policy Commissioner Dalli has said the hen imbroglio is undermining the EU's credibility.

His office said that 14 member states are still not complying with the rules, including France, Italy, Poland and Spain.

"We're now faced with a situation where something has to be done about these illegal eggs coming onto the British market," said Plant.

link :- http://www.huffingto..._n_1198819.html

Somewhat short of 'progressive'.

Edited by itsnotoutthere
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The EU is guided by the precautionary principle in matters pertaining to the environment. It has therefore imposed a ban until the evidence suggesting an impact on bees can be verified. If the evidence subsequently doesn't stack up the ban will be lifted.

The precautionary principle is one of the most progressive guiding principles the EU applies and I am more than grateful they do in the face of vested interests.

Br Cornelius

We'll have to keep an eye on this because it seems the largest producer and exporter of the pesticide is Germany. - in addition the UK government as said by not using the pesticide we'll see a decrease in crops, and a knock on effect on food prices. - a price ever increasing, how are the poor going to afford it? if the study finds only 10 Bees die in every 1000 from the pesticide. who do we put first the cart or the Horse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll have to keep an eye on this because it seems the largest producer and exporter of the pesticide is Germany. - in addition the UK government as said by not using the pesticide we'll see a decrease in crops, and a knock on effect on food prices. - a price ever increasing, how are the poor going to afford it? if the study finds only 10 Bees die in every 1000 from the pesticide. who do we put first the cart or the Horse?

The evidence is extremely compelling, but not conclusive. So compelling that a company which did the research was bough up by Monsanto and silenced. The crisis is such that if bee numbers continue to decline the overall food productivity will take a significant dip due to loss of pollinators. It not only makes environmental sense it also makes sound economic sense to impose a ban.

Br Cornelius

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The evidence is extremely compelling, but not conclusive. So compelling that a company which did the research was bough up by Monsanto and silenced. The crisis is such that if bee numbers continue to decline the overall food productivity will take a significant dip due to loss of pollinators. It not only makes environmental sense it also makes sound economic sense to impose a ban.

Br Cornelius

besides, even if the danger is only potential, safety should always precede economic gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, MONSANTO only see's dollar signs and nothing else....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.