Quantcast

Court Order: Movento illegal in the United States

Beekeeping Forum

Help Support Beekeeping Forum:

jezd 

Drone Bee
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
1,541
Reaction score
2
Location
UK
Hive Type
other
Number of Hives
299.1
USA News

http://www.nrdc.org/media/2009/091229.asp

NEW YORK (December 29, 2009) – A pesticide that could be dangerously toxic to America’s honey bees must be pulled from store shelves as a result of a suit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Xerces Society. In an order issued last week, a federal court in New York invalidated EPA’s approval of the pesticide spirotetramat (manufactured by Bayer CropScience under the trade names Movento and Ultor) and ordered the agency to reevaluate the chemical in compliance with the law. The court’s order goes into effect on January 15, 2010, and makes future sales of Movento illegal in the United States.

I know some of you are big Bayer fans :cheers2:
 

wojciech 

House Bee
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
104
Reaction score
0
Location
Lincolnshire
Hive Type
national
Number of Hives
2
See quote from the latest BEEMAIL:

A JUDGE in the US has pulled the
plug on a chemical insecticide after
protests from environmental groups
about its possible effects of honey
bees.
Spirotetramat, sold under various names
including Movento, was approved for use in
the US in 2008, but in December District
Court Judge Denise Cote ordered the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
withdraw its approval for the chemical, which
inhibits cell reproduction in insects.
The ruling means the insecticide will be
illegal in the US from January 15, and has
been welcomed by several campaign groups
concerned about pesticide links to Colony
Collapse Disorder.
“This decision pulls a potentially dangerous
insecticide from the market so that it can be
evaluated. There are lower-risk alternatives
on the market,” said Aaron Colangelo, an
attorney for the New York-based Natural
Resources Defense Council, which sued the
EPA along with the Xerces Society, a wildlife
conservation group from Portland, Oregon.
Both Bayer CropScience and the EPA have
60 days to appeal the decision, but the EPA
said it was merely “reviewing the situation”.
Bayer was quick to point out, however,
that the decision was based on procedural
irregularites at the EPA, rather than on the
performance of the product itself, which
spokesman Jack Boyne said was “excellent”
in regard to bee safety. The chemical is
cleared for use in several nations, including
much of Europe, Australia and Canada.
Last week the company held urgent talks
with the British Beekeepersʼ Association to
discuss spirotetramat ahead of Bayerʼs
intended announcement this week of the
launch of products containing the chemical on
the UK market in May.
A BBKA spokesman said they were
satisfied that spirotetramat posed minimal risk
to bees.
Indeed, the toxicity of spirotetramat to
honey bees is said to be so low that products
containing the active substance will not be
required to carry any kind of labelling or
restrictions concerning honey bees.
“The court case had nothing to do with the
properties of the compound”, the spokseman
told BeeMail. “Basically the judge ruled that
there had been no public comment carried out
due to a procedural mistake by the US EPA in
carrying out the authorisation process.”
The EPA approved spirotetramat in 2008 for
use on hundreds of crops, including apples,
pears, peaches, oranges, tomatoes, grapes,
strawberries, almonds and spinach.
Judge Cote criticised the agency for not
properly publicising its review of the product
or seeking comments about its award of a
licence for use.
“The EPA utterly failed to comply with these
procedural requirements and has offered no
explanation whatsoever for these shortcomings,”
Cote wrote.
Mr Colangelo added: “The EPA admitted to
approving the pesticide illegally, but argued
that its violations of the law should have no
consequences.”
No 22, January 2010 Send your news to: beemail@bee-craft.com Editor: Chris Richmond


Why does'nt it surprise me that both BBKA and Beemail are putting a very charitable gloss towards Bayer in relation to this development

What's the betting that we hear that this is the next Bayer product that 'll carry the BBKA logo of approval ?
 

MJBee 

Drone Bee
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
0
Location
Dordogne 24360 France
Hive Type
commercial
Number of Hives
16 a mix of Commercial, National, 14 x 12, Dadant and a Warre
It isn't licenced in the UK YET but:-

spokesman Jack Boyne said was “excellent”
in regard to bee safety. The chemical is
cleared for use in several nations, including
much of Europe, Australia and Canada.
Last week the company held urgent talks
with the British Beekeepersʼ Association to
discuss spirotetramat ahead of Bayerʼs
intended announcement this week of the
launch of products containing the chemical on
the UK market in May.
A BBKA spokesman said they were
satisfied that spirotetramat posed minimal risk
to bees.

The last sentence makes me want to:puke:
 

wojciech 

House Bee
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
104
Reaction score
0
Location
Lincolnshire
Hive Type
national
Number of Hives
2
Yes, and in the meantime the BBKA is collecting its' miserable 30 pieces of silver and feeling good because of its' flirtation with big business.

If I had only known of this situation when I joined my local Beedkeepers !!

Never again.
 

Chris Richmond 

New Bee
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Location
uk
Hive Type
national
I am sorry (and a little surprised) that wojciech feels BeeMail put a 'positive gloss' on the spirotetramat story, especially as BeeMail is (as far as I know) as yet the only publication to raise the issue in the UK.
As part of the Bee Craft stable (apiary?) BeeMail has official ties to the BBKA but I have taken great pains to keep the issue of pesticides under the spotlight. A brief glance at past issues of BeeMail should confirm this, including a list of concerns linking Bayer products to (possibly) CCD in the US, cotton underwear makers in India and the deliberate poisoning of lions in Africa.
However, responsible journalism requires stories should be balanced. To that end the spirotetramat story includes quotes from the judge, the lawyer representing the environmental groups, Bayer and the BBKA. It also provides links to two other reports in the US for further detail.
 

Poly Hive 

Queen Bee
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
13,655
Reaction score
3
Location
Scottish Borders
Hive Type
national
Number of Hives
9 and 18 Nucs
Can you clarify your position with regards to Beecraft/BeeMail please?

PH
 

wojciech 

House Bee
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
104
Reaction score
0
Location
Lincolnshire
Hive Type
national
Number of Hives
2
Beemail - " Pesticide banned on "technicality" "

I am sorry (and a little surprised) that wojciech feels BeeMail put a 'positive gloss' on the spirotetramat story, especially as BeeMail is (as far as I know) as yet the only publication to raise the issue in the UK.
As part of the Bee Craft stable (apiary?) BeeMail has official ties to the BBKA but I have taken great pains to keep the issue of pesticides under the spotlight. A brief glance at past issues of BeeMail should confirm this, including a list of concerns linking Bayer products to (possibly) CCD in the US, cotton underwear makers in India and the deliberate poisoning of lions in Africa.
However, responsible journalism requires stories should be balanced. To that end the spirotetramat story includes quotes from the judge, the lawyer representing the environmental groups, Bayer and the BBKA. It also provides links to two other reports in the US for further detail.
I accept that the report as a whole contained quotes from a number of parties, including the attorney for the Natural Resources Defence Council who brought the action. However, the headline referring to a "technicality" was at odds with the Court judgement which made it clear that the EPA's review of the research data provided by Bayer had given cause for concern about danger to bees at all stages of their development, even though the studies referred to dosages lower than those recommended for use. It was due to these concerns that the court felt it particularly important that further information, through further consultations, should have been obtained as prescribed by the regulations binding on the EPA. To desctibe this as a "technicality" is at best a spin on the facts presented by the Court report :

"In the registration process, the EPA identified concerns
about the insecticide’s effect on bees. The EPA’s review of
tests exposing honeybees to spirotetramat found, inter alia,
“increased mortality in adults and pupae, massive perturbation
of brood development, early brood development, and decreased
larval abundance.” The EPA further found that insecticides that inhibit lipid biosynthesis have “potential for chronic effects
on bee broods and development” and “may adversely affect bee
broods and development;” and in 2007 the EPA found there is
“uncertainty regarding the potential chronic effects of
spirotetramat on pollinators because no long-term data were
available.” By the time the EPA made its registration decision
in June 2008, it had reviewed additional studies on
spirotetramat’s chronic effect on bees, but it still found the
data lacking because the chronic effect studies tested
spirotetramat at levels lower than the label-recommended
application rate." - official Court report of the Cotes judgement.

Having said that, I have to admit that as a new beekeeper and member of the BBKA, I have been disturbed by the frequent articles in the BBKA News which have told us of studies carried out proving that insecticides are harmless to bees and have found myself wondering whether the BBKA's financial relationship with agro-chemical companies has influenced their selection of material to publish. I have not seen such bias in Beecraft and for that reason was disturbed by the article in Beemail, particularly the headline.
 
Last edited:

Chris Richmond 

New Bee
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Location
uk
Hive Type
national
The devil is in the detail

I have only been keeping bees for 6 years, but I have been a journalist for 26. Rest assured, those quote marks in the headline are used by newspapers to cover a multitude of sins.

In this case, the judge's decision was reached not on the basis of a proven risk to bees from the chemicals but because the EPA hadn't engaged in proper consultation. Hence it is a 'technicality'.

In fact, in the first draft, the sub-head mentioned the judge's comments that the chemicals 'could pose a threat' to bees but, after receiving feedback from the BBKA after their meeting with Bayer, I changed that to the more newsworthy note about the chemicals' imminent launch in Britain.

As a result, and because I hadn't repeated the judge's comment in the body copy, it ended up being omitted from my report - for which I apologise - but was still to be found in the original court reports, to which I provided hyperlinks.

I hope this sets your mind at rest.
 

Chris Richmond 

New Bee
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Location
uk
Hive Type
national
For Poly Hive: Me? I'm the Editor of BeeMail.
 
Last edited:

Brosville 

Queen Bee
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
3,132
Reaction score
0
Location
uk
Hive Type
tbh
Number of Hives
4
Could someone clarify something for me? - my reading of this thread suggests that a "NEW" toxin from those nice cuddly people at Bayer, (for some legal reasons banned in the US of A), is due to "hit the streets" in the UK this May - due in no small part to the "expertise" of a self-appointed, very much minority organisation, who have decided on the strength of a cosy chat with those nice Bayer people, (who help fund them), that it's the utter bee's knees, couldn't possibly be harmful - in fact probably beneficial, to the extent that no caution whatsoever is needed.............
Am I smelling a very large rat here? Is there a journo about the place who could expose this travesty?
 
Last edited:

wojciech 

House Bee
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
104
Reaction score
0
Location
Lincolnshire
Hive Type
national
Number of Hives
2
Red Top Journalism

I have only been keeping bees for 6 years, but I have been a journalist for 26. Rest assured, those quote marks in the headline are used by newspapers to cover a multitude of sins.

In this case, the judge's decision was reached not on the basis of a proven risk to bees from the chemicals but because the EPA hadn't engaged in proper consultation. Hence it is a 'technicality'.

In fact, in the first draft, the sub-head mentioned the judge's comments that the chemicals 'could pose a threat' to bees but, after receiving feedback from the BBKA after their meeting with Bayer, I changed that to the more newsworthy note about the chemicals' imminent launch in Britain.

As a result, and because I hadn't repeated the judge's comment in the body copy, it ended up being omitted from my report - for which I apologise - but was still to be found in the original court reports, to which I provided hyperlinks.

I hope this sets your mind at rest.


Hmmm, very interesting - so you were going to mention the judges comment that the chemicals "could pose a a threat" but after the BBKA held a meeting with Bayer you decided to remove this report of danger from the launch of the product in order to merely report the launch !!!

Let me make a simplistic comparison of this "technicality" - lets say that my neighbour decides to build an outdoor gun range for heavy calibre rifles. The Planning authority enters into negotiations with him and passes his application without advising me or other neighbours that the application has been made. Do I seek to overturn the decision on the grounds of danger, noise pollution, loss of amenity and of value of my property ? Or do I go to court to complain that the planning authority has failed to follow its' own rules ie to publicise the application and allow those affected to make representations ? DOH !! What a difficult quandary !!

Quite clearly the report of the court proceedings shows that the product is extremely dangerous to bees :

"The EPA’s risk assessment of spirotetramat found:
Despite that the intrinsic hazard potential to bees
based on the acute oral and contact studies with
honey bees appears to be low, brood feeding tests
with bees and acute toxicity contact studies with
other nontarget insects (e.g. parasitoid wasps and
predatory mites) conducted at less than the maximum
application rate suggest there is potential for
mortality in adults and pupae, massive perturbation
of brood development, and early brood termination as
a result of spirotetramat use. This information,
coupled with the fact that two other chemicals
representing the ketoenole class of compounds
(spiromesifen and spirodiclofen) have also
demonstrated the potential for chronic effects on
bee broods and development while displaying low
acute toxicity, suggests that the mode of action ofthese compounds (i.e., inhibition of lipid
biosynthesis) may adversely affect bee broods and
development. Although a study has been submitted
for spirotetramat under guideline 850.3040, it was
conducted at application rates approximately half of
the label-recommended rates and it was not designed
in such a manner that adverse effects resulting from
treatment could be statistically determined.
Therefore, it is recommended that a study design be
developed in collaboration with the Environmental
Fate and Effects Division [of the EPA]."

And the BBKA is lobbying that this product should be released into this country without further ado because it was merely banned in the USA on a "technicality " !!! A claim that you are repeating, while bleating about providing hyperlinks to reports which give the lie to your headline and report .

How can you possibly deny bias in your publication in the direction established by the BBKA senior management ?
 

m100 

Field Bee
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
821
Reaction score
0
Location
Yorkshire
Hive Type
14x12
Number of Hives
Enough
in the first draft, the sub-head mentioned the judge's comments that the chemicals 'could pose a threat' to bees but, after receiving feedback from the BBKA after their meeting with Bayer, I changed that
It's nice to know precisely in who's interests the BBKA are acting

Presumably this has been done with the presence or full agreement of the newly elected members of the executive?

Situation Normal, Groundhog Day.
 

Bcrazy 

Drone Bee
Joined
Nov 14, 2008
Messages
1,491
Reaction score
5
Location
Warboys, CAMBS
Hive Type
none
Number of Hives
nil bees given away all colonies
I don't F believe this BBKA are selling us down the river. I am going to email, a couple of people in the Exc comm to find out what the heell is going on.

Regards;
 

Bcrazy 

Drone Bee
Joined
Nov 14, 2008
Messages
1,491
Reaction score
5
Location
Warboys, CAMBS
Hive Type
none
Number of Hives
nil bees given away all colonies
Tha BBKA Tecnical Committee have studied spirotetramat but have not endorsed its use.

Regards;
 

wojciech 

House Bee
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
104
Reaction score
0
Location
Lincolnshire
Hive Type
national
Number of Hives
2
Tha BBKA Tecnical Committee have studied spirotetramat but have not endorsed its use.

Regards;
I'm pleased to hear that but then the amount of evidence before the Federal Court indicating threat to bees was abundant, in spite of the claimed "technicality".

However, this quote from Beemail remains worrying :

Last week the company held urgent talks
with the British Beekeepersʼ Association to
discuss spirotetramat ahead of Bayerʼs
intended announcement this week of the
launch of products containing the chemical on
the UK market in May.
A BBKA spokesman said they were
satisfied that spirotetramat posed minimal risk
to bees.

Where is the BBKA Exec going with this - should'nt they make an official announcemeny ?
 

Bcrazy 

Drone Bee
Joined
Nov 14, 2008
Messages
1,491
Reaction score
5
Location
Warboys, CAMBS
Hive Type
none
Number of Hives
nil bees given away all colonies
Would Beemail like to name names then so we can identify the spokesperson?

Where is the BBKA Exec going with this - should'nt they make an official announcemeny ?
Why should they?

Regards;
 

Brosville 

Queen Bee
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
3,132
Reaction score
0
Location
uk
Hive Type
tbh
Number of Hives
4
Does one presume that the BBKA had commissioned extensive independent field and laboratory tests before pronouncing upon the complete and utter safety of a new product from their bedfellows at Bayer? :svengo:

Went to a wedding a while ago where I had a very interesting chat with someone who was "at school with a certain member of the BBKA hierarchy", and totally unprompted informed me that he was "a twisty dishonest little sh*t" in his youth too.............I suspect he grew into a spokesman...
 

Latest posts

Top