It makes a good story if you can spin this as a case of EPA ignoring its own scientists as evidenced by a leaked report. But what the report (a public document according to Theobald) actually recommends is not that the pesticide be denied registration, but that it should only be sold with a warning.
"EFED [Environmental Fate and Effects Division of the EPA]expects adverse effects to bees if clothianidin is allowed to drift from seed planting equipment. Because of this and the uncertainty surrounding the exposure and potential toxicity through contaminated pollen and nectar, EFED is recommending bee precautionary labeling."
Grist, Fast Company, and Wired have all gone with the "Leak Reveals EPA ignoring its own Scientists" story. But that story is nonsense and distracts from the real problem; namely, the fact that the so-called leak actually only recommends precautionary labeling. What really needs to be leaked is the memo that explains why EFED's recommendations are so weak in a case where high toxicity is known to occur.
The people buying the pesticides aren't the ones bearing the costs of the adverse effects so whether or not there is a warning label is completely irrelevant.
I think you're thinking that a bee precautionary label would say something like "Warning: Dangerous to Bees," in which case non-beekeeping farmers might not care. I suspect the label would instead mandate that users apply the product in a prescribed manner in order to minimize drift (one of the known causes of toxicity to bees). Pesticides typically come with fairly detailed instructions for proper use. My point, though, was that mandating such a label, in this case, is still not an adequate response on the part of EFED to the problem.
I think you're close enough here to the presupposition of both my comments above as makes no difference.
That's why I said the EFED recommendations were too weak; that's why I called it an 'inadequate response.' Let me say it again explicitly: A warning is not good enough. Let me clarify again the original point: The real scandal here is that EFED thinks a warning is good enough.
"EFED [Environmental Fate and Effects Division of the EPA]expects adverse effects to bees if clothianidin is allowed to drift from seed planting equipment. Because of this and the uncertainty surrounding the exposure and potential toxicity through contaminated pollen and nectar, EFED is recommending bee precautionary labeling."
Grist, Fast Company, and Wired have all gone with the "Leak Reveals EPA ignoring its own Scientists" story. But that story is nonsense and distracts from the real problem; namely, the fact that the so-called leak actually only recommends precautionary labeling. What really needs to be leaked is the memo that explains why EFED's recommendations are so weak in a case where high toxicity is known to occur.