{"word_count": 286, "character_count": 1851}
      "n April 2013, based on reviews by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the European Commission announced a two-year ban on the use of three insecticides in the neonicotinoid group on certain flowering crops, as well as on certain crops that are not attractive to bees at certain times of the year.Although there was strong lobbying against the proposed ban by the multinational chemical companies that produce the insecticides, along with farmer’s groups, strong lobbying in support of the ban came from environmental groups, beekeeping organizations and the general public. Even after two rounds of voting, the European parliament did not reach a consensus, forcing the European Commission to exercise its rights and impose the ban – based especially on the evidence presented in a review of relevant scientific data produced by the European Union’s own European Food Safety Authority. Various reports suggest that, on the one hand, some European governments were persuaded to support the position of the multinational chemical companies rather than be persuaded by the review of research data, while on the other hand, environmental groups over-played the risks posed by the insecticides in question and the potential benefits of the proposed ban.This case study report briefly reviews the background data on recent reported declines in bee populations; cites some of the evidence put forward by EFSA and others in support of and against the ban; reports on the process of the legislation as it proceeded through the European parliament as well as the lobbying that went on during the votes, including an analysis of the roles of key players and commentators; and proposes a way forward to resolve the apparent dichotomy between the pesticide producers and those who support the ban."Tags:                agriculture_urbaine            