http://modernfarmer.com/2013/05/can-a-lawsuit-save-americas-bees/

(edited)

Steve Ellis  and a handful of other beekeepers from around the country are teaming up with some of the most powerful and sophisticated environmental groups in the U.S.

They're plaintiffs in a lawsuit, Ellis v. Bradbury (read the complaint here), against the EPA to stop the use of two pesticides that Ellis and other beekeepers believe are killing their bee colonies. The suit not only attempts to eliminate the use of neonicotinoid pesticides containing the ingredients clothianidin and thiamethoxam, which damage the central nervous system of insects, but to challenge the way the EPA approves pesticides.

If they win, it could change the way pesticides hit the market. If they lose, Ellis and the others believe it could be the end of beekeeping as we know it.

They are far from alone in their concerns-the European Union voted in late April to temporarily ban some neonicotinoids, including those fingered in the suit, for two years because of their detrimental effect on honeybees.

"We're right on the edge of losing it, and we need help right now," says Ellis.

To that end, the beekeepers set out to find allies. They include nonprofit advocacy groups such as the Center for Food Safety, Beyond Pesticides, the Sierra Club, Pesticide Action Network North America, and the Center for Environmental Health who collectively filed the suit (as well as three other beekeepers) in federal court in late March. The EPA has until mid-May to respond.

The dire situation has garnered international attention and at stake is not only the fate of honeybees and the ecosystems that depend on them for pollination, but perhaps more tellingly the farmers who require the hives of commercial beekeepers to pollinate their crops, including almonds, stone fruits, avocados, apples, and carrots.

Ellis and the environmental groups believe that clothianidin and thiamethoxam - insecticides applied to dozens of crops spread over more than 100 million acres by farmers seeking to protect their yields from a variety of insects - are in large part to blame for colony collapse disorder. They say that their bees become contaminated with the nerve agents while foraging nectar from the treated crops.

As to why the EPA has been slow to name pesticides as the primary culprit, Ellis says, "They seem more interested in getting products registered quickly, than doing work to protect the environment from the result of those products."

Ultimately, if a person or group has a beef with a pesticide, they must take it to the EPA's doorstep. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) tasks the agency with regulating the use and sale of pesticides to protect humans and the environment. But when it comes to putting pesticides on the market, the EPA can "conditionally" greenlight products. That means they OK a pesticide for use with the understanding that additional scientific data is needed before final registration can be approved. And that process, the lawsuit says, has been abused.

According to the complaint, thiamethoxam and clothianidin were conditionally registered in 2000 and 2003 respectively. There are no set deadlines for conditionally registered products to be reviewed, and more than a decade later, the requirement for basic scientific studies on the impact of the insecticides has gone unmet. Among the outstanding studies, the complaint says that EPA hasn't fulfilled its stated requirement to "complete an adequate life cycle study, and evaluation of exposure and effect to the queen bee."

"They have remained conditionally registered for 10 years without adequate information," says Peter Jenkins, lead counsel on the suit for the Center for Food Safety. "That wasn't what Congress intended, and we think that's a compelling argument to make before a judge."

The suit also argues that the EPA has denied that certain uses of clothianidin pose an "imminent hazard" to honey bees and made this final determination without considering new data about bee kills. It also claims that the EPA repeatedly failed to publically announce new or changed uses of the pesticides. And this could provide some relief for beekeepers. When it was found in recent similar cases that the EPA failed to meet public notice requirements, those pesticide registrations were in part withdrawn.

For many watching the case from the sidelines, of great interest is how the EPA will weigh its legal obligations. When the EPA registers a pesticide, it must balance the risks and benefits the chemical poses to the national food supply. Given that on the one hand neonicotinoids are used on corn, cereals, and sugar beets (among other major agricultural crops), and on the other that one-third of U.S. crops depend on pollinators, the stakes are enormous.

"I'm not familiar with another case where there would be anywhere near that large of an economic impact on both sides of equation," says former EPA attorney Tom Boer, who is now with the environmental defense law firm Barg Coffin Lewis and Trapp.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-BIOTECH-FORUM list, send any message to: [log in to unmask] Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp