<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail-container gmail-content-width3">
<div class="gmail-header gmail-reader-header gmail-reader-show-element">
<font size="1"><a href="https://theintercept.com/2020/01/18/bees-insecticides-pesticides-neonicotinoids-bayer-monsanto-syngenta/">https://theintercept.com/2020/01/18/bees-insecticides-pesticides-neonicotinoids-bayer-monsanto-syngenta/</a>
</font><h1 class="gmail-reader-title">The Pesticide Industry’s Playbook for Poisoning the Earth</h1>
<div class="gmail-credits gmail-reader-credits">Lee Fang - January 18 2020</div>
</div>
<hr>
<div class="gmail-content">
<div class="gmail-moz-reader-content gmail-line-height4 gmail-reader-show-element"><div id="gmail-readability-page-1" class="gmail-page"><div><div><p><span><img src="https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2020/01/Dropcaps-I-1579296382.png?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90" alt="I"></span><u>n September 2009,</u>
over 3,000 bee enthusiasts from around the world descended on the city
of Montpellier in southern France for Apimondia — a festive beekeeper
conference filled with scientific lectures, hobbyist demonstrations, and
commercial beekeepers hawking honey. But that year, a cloud loomed over
the event: bee colonies across the globe were collapsing, and billions
of bees were dying.</p>
<p>Bee declines have been observed throughout recorded history, but the
sudden, persistent and abnormally high annual hive losses had gotten so
bad that the U.S. Department of Agriculture had commissioned two of the
world’s most well-known entomologists — Dennis vanEngelsdorp, a chief
apiary inspector in Pennsylvania, then studying at Penn State
University, and Jeffrey Pettis, then working as a government scientist —
to study the mysterious decline. They posited that there must be an
underlying factor weakening bees’ immune systems.</p></div><div><p>At
Le Corum, a conference center and opera house, the pair discussed their
findings. They had fed bees with extremely small amounts of
neonicotinoids, or neonics, the most commonly used class of insecticides
in the world. Neonics are, of course, meant to kill insects, but they
are marketed as safe for insects that aren’t being directly targeted.
VanEngelsdorp and Pettis found that even at nonlethal doses, the bees in
the trial became much more vulnerable to fungal infection. Bees
carrying an infection will often fly off to die, a virtuous form of
suicide designed to protect the larger hive from contagion.</p>
<p>“We exposed whole colonies to very low levels of neonicotinoids in this case, and then challenged bees from those colonies with<em> Nosema</em>, a pathogen, a gut pathogen,” said Pettis, speaking to filmmaker Mark Daniels in his <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNvXDAkRzUw">documentary</a>, “The
Strange Disappearance of the Bees,” at Apimondia. “And we saw an
increase, even if we fed the pesticide at very low levels — an increase
in <em>Nosema</em> levels — in direct response to the low-level feeding of neonicotinoids.”</p>
<p>The dosages of the pesticide were so miniscule, said vanEngelsdorp,
that it was “below the limit of detection.” The only reason they knew
the bees had consumed the neonicotinoids, he added, was “because we
exposed them.”</p>
<p>Bee health depends on a variety of synergistic factors, the
scientists were careful to note. But in this study, Pettis said, they
were able to isolate “one pesticide and one pathogen and we clearly see
the interaction.”</p>
</div><div><p>The evidence was mounting. Shortly after vanEngelsdorp and Pettis revealed their findings, a number of French researchers <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2847190/">produced</a>
a nearly identical study, feeding minute amounts of the same pesticide
to bees, along with a control group. The study produced results that
echoed what the Americans had found.</p>
<p>Drifting clouds of neonicotinoid dust from planting operations caused
a series of massive bee die-offs in northern Italy and the
Baden-Württemberg region of Germany. Studies have shown neonicotinoids
impaired bees’ ability to <a href="https://jeb.biologists.org/content/218/18/2821">navigate</a> and <a href="https://jeb.biologists.org/content/216/10/1799">forage</a> for food, weakened bee colonies, and made them <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44207-1">prone</a> to infestation by parasitic mites.</p>
<p>In 2013, the European Union called for a temporary suspension of the
most commonly used neonicotinoid-based products on flowering plants,
citing the danger posed to bees — an effort that resulted in a permanent
ban in 2018.</p>
<p>In the U.S., however, industry dug in, seeking not only to discredit
the research but to cast pesticide companies as a solution to the
problem. Lobbying documents and emails, many of which were obtained
through open records requests, show a sophisticated effort over the last
decade by the pesticide industry to obstruct any effort to restrict the
use of neonicotinoids. Bayer and Syngenta, the largest manufacturers of
neonics, and Monsanto, one of the leading producers of seeds pretreated
with neonics, cultivated ties with prominent academics, including
vanEngelsdorp, and other scientists who had once called for a greater
focus on the threat posed by pesticides.</p></div><div><div><p><img src="https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2020/01/GettyImages-462739840-1579298982.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90" alt="Automobiles pass Syngenta AG's headquarters at dawn in Basel, Switzerland, on Feb. 4, 2015. Syngenta, the world's largest maker of crop protection chemicals, forecast stable earnings this year as the benefits of a cost-cutting program offset unfavorable currency shifts. Photographer: Philipp Schmidli/Bloomberg via Getty Images"></p><p class="gmail-caption">Syngenta AG’s headquarters in Basel, Switzerland, on Feb. 4, 2015.</p>
<p class="gmail-caption">
Photo: Philipp Schmidli/Bloomberg via Getty Images</p></div></div><div><p>The
companies also sought influence with beekeepers and regulators, and
went to great lengths to shape public opinion. Pesticide firms launched
new coalitions and seeded foundations with cash to focus on nonpesticide
factors in pollinator decline.</p>
<p>“Position the industry as an active promoter of bee health, and
advance best management practices which emphasize bee safety,” noted an <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6594019-CLA-Pollinator-Issue-Management-Plan.html">internal planning</a>
memo from CropLife America, the lobby group for the largest pesticide
companies in America, including Bayer and Syngenta. The ultimate goal of
the bee health project, the document noted, was to ensure that member
companies maintained market access for neonic products and other
systemic pesticides.</p></div><a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6594019.html#document/p1" target="_blank"><img src="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6594019/pages/CLA-Pollinator-Issue-Management-Plan-p1-normal.gif"></a><div><p>The
planning memo, helmed in part by Syngenta regulatory official John
Abbott, charts a variety of strategies for advancing the pesticide
industry’s interests, such as, “Challenge EPA on the size and breadth of
the pollinator testing program.” CropLife America officials were also
tapped to “proactively shape the conversation in the new media realm
with respect to pollinators” and “minimize negative association of crop
protection products with effects on pollinators.” The<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6594019-CLA-Pollinator-Issue-Management-Plan.html"> document</a>, dated June 2014, calls for “outreach to university researchers who could be independent validators.”</p>
<p>The pesticide companies have used a variety of strategies to shift the public discourse.</p>
<p>“America’s Heartland,” a PBS series shown on affiliates throughout
the country and underwritten by CropLife America, portrayed the
pollinator declines as a mystery. One<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwceNkOXClI"> segment</a>
from early 2013 on the crisis made no mention of pesticides, with the
host simply declaring that “experts aren’t sure why” bees and
butterflies were disappearing.</p></div><div><p>Another
segment, released in January 2015, quickly mentions pesticides as one
of many possible factors for honeybee deaths. A representative of the
“North American Bee Care Program,” Becky Langer,<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeO5horngm8"> appeared on the program</a> to discuss the “exotic pests that can affect the bees.” The program does not mention Langer’s<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/rebecca-langer-curry"> position</a> as a spokesperson for Bayer focused on managing fallout from the bee controversy.</p>
<p>Michael Sanford, a spokesperson for PBS KVIE, which produces
“America’s Heartland,” wrote in an email to The Intercept that
“consistent with strict PBS editorial standards and our own,” sponsors
of the show provided no editorial input.</p>
<p>Bayer’s advocacy, designed to position the firm as a leader in protecting bee health, included a <a href="https://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/02/prweb11590719.htm">roadshow</a> around the country, in which Bayer officials handed out oversized <a href="http://www.merlofarminggroup.com/feed-bee-announces-coast-coast-recipients-500000-pollinator-forage-initiative">ceremonial checks</a> to local beekeepers and students. The firm hosts splashy <a href="https://beecare.bayer.com/home">websites</a> touting its leadership in promoting bee health and sponsors a number of beekeeping associations.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Bayer has financed a<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIk0-aanjUY&feature=youtu.be"> series of online advertisements</a> that depict individuals who fear that its pesticide products harm nontarget insects as deranged conspiracy theorists.</p></div><blockquote><span></span><p>Honeybees
have captured almost all the attention for the dangers of neonics, but
they are hardly the only species in decline because of the chemical.</p></blockquote><div><p>Other forms of influence have been far more covert.</p>
<p>Communications staff with CropLife America <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6594078-COC-Packet-5-13-16.html#document/p17/a541572">compiled</a>
a list of terms to shape on search engine results, including
“neonicotinoid,” “pollinators,” and “neonics.” One of the consulting
firms tapped to coordinate the industry effort, Paradigm Communications,
a subsidiary of the public relations giant Porter Novelli, helped lead
the effort to shift how the industry was portrayed in search engine
results.</p>
<p>A slide prepared by Paradigm Communications showcases efforts to <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6574490-Anthony-LaFauce.html">decouple</a> Google search results for bee decline with neonic pesticides.</p>
<p>The greatest public relations coup has been the effort to reframe the
debate around bee decline to focus only on the threat of Varroa mites, a
parasite native to Asia that began spreading to the U.S. in the 1980s.
The mite is known to rapidly infest bee hives and carry a range of
infectious diseases.</p>
<p>CropLife America, among other groups backed by pesticide companies,
has financed research and advocacy around the mite — an effort designed
to muddy the conversation around pesticide use. Meanwhile, research
suggests the issues are interrelated; neonics make bees far more
susceptible to mite infestations and attendant diseases.</p>
<p>Bayer even constructed a sculpture of the Varroa mite at its “Bee
Care Center” in North Carolina and at its research center in Germany,
hyping its role as the primary force fueling the decline of pollinators.</p></div><div><div><p><img src="https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2020/01/h_14428431-1579299051.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90" alt="FILE -- A model of honeybee with a varroa mite on its back at Bayer's Bee Care Center in Monheim am Rhein, Germany, Nov. 19, 2013. Scientists and biotechnology companies are developing a way to kill insects, like the mite, which is believed to be partly responsible for the mass die-offs of honeybees, by disabling their genes. (Joanna Nottebrock/The New York Times) -- EDITORIAL USE ONLY"></p><p class="gmail-caption">A model of honeybee with a Varroa mite on its back at Bayer’s Bee Care Center in Monheim am Rhein, Germany, on Nov. 19, 2013.</p>
<p class="gmail-caption">
Photo: Joanna Nottebrock/The New York Times via Redux</p></div></div><div><p>The
stunningly successful campaign has kept most neonic products in wide
circulation in commercial agriculture as well as in home gardens. The
result is a world awash in neonics — and massive profits for companies
such as Syngenta and Bayer, which now counts Monsanto as a subsidiary.</p>
<p>Millions of pounds of the chemical are applied to 140 commercial
crops every year. In the U.S., nearly all field-planted corn and
two-thirds of soybean use neonic-coated seeds. The chemical is found in
soil samples from coast to coast, in waterways and in drinking water.
Neonics, which are water soluble, have been detected in the American
River in California, the River Waveney in England, tap water in Iowa
City, and hundreds of other streams and rivers across the world. In
Brazil last year, after President Jair Bolsonaro’s government approved
dozens of new pesticides, the use of neonics caused the death of <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-49406369">more than 500 million bees</a> across the country.</p>
<p>In August, a study publishing in peer-reviewed journal PLOS One found that the American landscape has become <a href="http://www.db.zs-intern.de/uploads/1567581964-2019NeonicsUSinsectsPone.pdf">48 times more toxic to insects</a> since the 1990s, a shift largely fueled by the rising application of neonics.</p>
<p>Honeybees have captured almost all the attention for the dangers of
neonics, but they are hardly the only species in decline because of the
chemical. Studies have tied neonics to the disappearance of <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-40031-9">native bees</a>, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31480499">butterflies</a>, <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-014-3471-x">mayflies</a>, <a href="http://shingetsunewsagency.com/2019/06/03/silent-autumns-pesticides-push-japans-iconic-red-dragonfly-to-extinction/">dragonflies</a>, <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-014-3471-x">amphipods</a>, and a range of <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-014-3471-x">waterborne insects</a>, as well as <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-014-3471-x">earthworms</a> and other insect invertebrates. Several species of <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6415/683">bumblebees</a> in the U.S. and Europe are approaching extinction, a die-off <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170814121057.htm">researchers</a> say is tied to the use of neonics and other pesticides.</p>
<p>In September, a study released in the academic journal Science <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6458/1177">revealed</a>
that migrating songbirds suffered immediate weight loss following the
consumption of only one or two seeds treated with neonics. Previous <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/7/140709-birds-insects-pesticides-insecticides-neonicotinoids-silent-spring/">research</a>
had linked disappearing insect life to dwindling food sources for birds
in the Netherlands, but the Science study provided the evidence that
bird species were directly affected by the chemical.</p>
<p>Another groundbreaking study published in Nature’s Scientific Reports <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-40994-9">showed</a>
that neonics are likely causing serious birth defects in white-tailed
deer, the first time research has shown that the chemical compound could
endanger large mammals.</p></div><blockquote><span></span><p>“Bees
are the canary in the cornfield,” said Lisa Archer, from Friends of the
Earth. “The science linking pesticides to the extinction crisis has
grown.”</p></blockquote><div><p>Scientists are only now taking a closer look at the potential impact of neonics on humans and other mammals.</p>
<p>“Bees are the canary in the cornfield,” said Lisa Archer, the food
and agriculture program director at Friends of the Earth. “The science
linking pesticides to the extinction crisis has grown.”</p>
<p>Dave Goulson, a professor of biology at the University of Sussex,
told The Intercept, “I think perhaps we are reaching a tipping point
where people finally begin to appreciate the importance of insects, the
scale of their decline, and that blitzing the landscape with pesticides
is not sustainable or desirable.”</p>
<p>Bayer and Syngenta reject any claim that their neonic products are harming the environment.</p>
<p>“Neonicotinoid products are critically important tools for farmers,
and are approved for use in more than 100 countries due to their strong
safety profile when used according to label,” said Susan Luke, a
spokesperson for Bayer Crop Science North America, in a statement to The
Intercept. “This is why Bayer continues to strongly support their
continued safe use, even though the manufacture of neonic products is
not a major part of our business.”</p>
<p>“Research claims that have been made questioning neonic safety all
share common flaws, such as exposure levels that far exceed real-world
scenarios, and the flawed idea that exposure to substances in the
environment necessarily means harm,” adds Luke. “It does not, otherwise
no one would go swimming in chlorine or drink caffeinated coffee.”</p>
<p>“Since neonicotinoids were introduced in the 1990s, honey bee
colonies have been increasing in the United States, Europe, Canada and
indeed around the world,” Chris Tutino, a spokesperson for Syngenta,
claimed in a statement to The Intercept. He added that “most scientists
and bee experts agree that bee health is affected by multiple factors,
including parasites, diseases, habitat and nutrition, weather and hive
management practices.”</p>
<p><span>Tutino, in his email, noted that the neonic compound
thiamethoxam, used in popular Syngenta products such as Cruiser and
Dividend, had undergone “extensive tests evaluating effects on
pollinators,” and provided links to five studies, all of which were
produced by Syngenta consultants or employees.</span></p>
<p>Neither company responded directly to questions about the role of
neonic products in fueling declines of butterflies, dragonflies, and
other insect species beyond bee populations. Both companies highlighted
company funding for honeybee health research.</p>
<p><span>The chemical industry’s comments were disputed by </span><span>Willa Childress, an organizer with Pesticide Action Network North America.</span><span><br>
</span><span><br>
</span><span>While it’s true, Childress noted, that managed honeybee
hive populations are growing, that is because of the commercial value of
honeybees in pollinating a vast array of American agriculture.
Beekeepers on average now lose around 40-50 percent of hives every year,
well up from historical averages of 10 percent. Many commercial
beekeepers are forced to constantly divide hives and buy queens to
maintain hive populations, with many relying on government subsidies to
scrape by.</span><span><br>
</span><span><br>
</span><span>“So no, honeybees aren’t doing ‘better than ever,’” said
Childress. “And the scientists do agree that multiple interacting
factors are driving pollinator decline, including, as chemical companies
neglect to mention, pesticide use.”</span><span><br>
</span><span><br>
</span><span>“Honeybees will not go extinct in our lifetimes,” noted
Childress. But, she added, “data on native bees and wild pollinators is
far more ‘apocalyptic’ than even the most concerning reports on honey
bee losses. Unprecedented numbers of wild pollinators are facing
extinction — and we have very limited data on a number of other
pollinators that are at risk.”</span></p>
<p><span><img src="https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2020/01/Dropcaps-N-1579296611.png?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90" alt="N"></span><u>ot long ago,</u> action in the U.S. to restrict neonics seemed imminent.</p>
<p>The pressure began to build in 2010 after Tom Theobald, a beekeeper
in Boulder, Colorado, obtained an internal Environmental Protection
Agency report showing that the agency’s own scientists had sharply
criticized the research used to permit the sale of one of the most
popular lines of neonic products.</p>
<p>In 2003, Bayer had secured the temporary right to use clothianidin, a
neonic used widely for corn and canola, from the EPA — under the
condition that the company conduct a “chronic life cycle study” showing
how use of the neonic would affect honeybees by the end of the following
year.</p>
<p>The Bayer-funded study, led by Cynthia Scott-Dupree, an environmental
sciences professor at the University of Guelph in Ontario, placed hives
in clothianidin-treated fields of canola and hives in untreated fields
of canola. The tests found little variation between the two sets of
hives, but researchers later pointed out that the hives in the study
were placed only 968 feet apart from one another. Honeybees forage for
pollen up to six miles from their hives.</p>
<p>Scott-Dupree was later appointed the “Bayer CropScience Chair in
Sustainable Pest Management” at the University of Guelph. Regulators in
Canada and at the EPA used the study to clear clothianidin for
unconditional use. Internally, however, EPA scientists expressed
concerns.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/memo_nov2010_clothianidin.pdf">memo</a>,
written by two EPA scientists, noted that the previous Bayer-funded
study failed baseline guidelines for pesticide research and warned that
clothianidin posed a “major risk concern” to “nontarget insects (that
is, honey bees).”</p>
<p>A dizzying array of research began pointing to problems with neonics.
Despite claims that the compound represents a form of precision
agriculture, a growing body of research shows that the chemical strays
far from <a href="https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2017/Q2/corn-seed-treatment-insecticides-pose-risks-to-honey-bees,-yield-benefits-elusive.html">targeted</a> crops,
often traveling with the wind during planting operations, remaining in
the soil for long periods of time, leaching into waterways, and causing
acute problems for a wide variety of insect and animal life.</p>
<p>In 2014, Rep. Earl Blumenauer, a Democrat from Oregon, introduced <a href="https://blumenauer.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/blumenauer-conyers-58-others-send-letter-urging-epa-take-immediate">legislation</a>
to compel the EPA to take steps to suspend the pesticides. That year,
in response to growing controversies around bee decline and the demands
for greater accountability over loosely regulated pesticide use,
President Barack Obama issued an executive <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/06/20/presidential-memorandum-creating-federal-strategy-promote-health-honey-b">memorandum</a> calling attention to the “significant loss of pollinators, including honey bees, native bees, birds, bats, and butterflies.”</p>
<p>Activists picketed the White House demanding action. Beekeepers and
environmentalist groups filed lawsuits challenging the registration
status of major neonic products, claiming that EPA had violated its own
protocols when licensing products from Bayer and Syngenta. The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service announced a <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/guidelines-for-interim-use-and-phase-out-of-neonicotinoid-insecticides-in-refuge-farming-for-wildlife-programs-signed-kf-7914_67415.pdf">decision</a> to phase out neonics in wildlife refuge areas in the Pacific region.</p>
<p>Around the country, legislators in states across the country proposed
bills to restrict neonics. In Minnesota, a bill was signed into law to
prevent nurseries from marketing plants as pollinator-friendly if they
had been treated with neonics.</p>
<p>For a while, the movement seemed to be gaining traction, which some
hoped would lead the U.S. to mirror the EU in moving to regulate the
widely used insecticide.</p>
<p>In the end, little changed. The settlements related to the lawsuits
removed small-market neonics. The private-public partnerships that grew
out of the Obama memorandum lacked any enforcement mechanism to restrict
neonic use in agriculture. President Donald Trump <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45068650">rescinded</a> the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rule. Minnesota legislators <a href="http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-senate-pulls-back-on-pollinator-protection/303790251/?refresh=true">quickly</a> repealed the labeling requirement a year after it was passed.</p></div><blockquote><span></span><p>After a
hearing in which he pointed to pesticides, Jeffrey Pettis told the
Washington Post that he was criticized him for failing to follow “the
script.”</p></blockquote><div><p>In almost every
other state, with the exception of Vermont, Connecticut, and Maryland,
lobbyists from the pesticide and agribusiness industry successfully
killed any significant restriction on neonic products. The scientific
community, once focused on studying the impact of pesticides, became
splintered, with many of the leading voices going to work for industry
or industry-backed nonprofits.</p>
<p>Critics of neonics were quickly sidelined. In April 2014, the House
Agriculture Subcommittee on Horticulture, Research, Biotechnology, and
Foreign Agriculture — then chaired by Rep. Austin Scott, a Georgia
Republican — convened a hearing to discuss the pollinator crisis. The
event featured David Fischer, a Bayer official, and Jeff Stone, lobbyist
for commercial nurseries. Both men used the hearing to warn against any
restrictions on neonics in response to bee decline. The third, Dan
Cummings, a representative of the Almond Board, a trade group for almond
growers, focused on the threat of the Varroa mite.</p>
<p>A fourth witness, the Department of Agriculture researcher Jeffrey
Pettis — the scientist who had collaborated with vanEngelsdorp — <a href="https://archives-agriculture.house.gov/sites/republicans.agriculture.house.gov/files/pdf/4.29.14%20113-12%20-%2087765.pdf">noted</a>
that unlike traditional pesticides, neonics are found in pollen,
increasing exposure to bees. Under questioning from Scott, the committee
chair, Pettis reiterated that even without mites, bees would still be
in decline, and pesticides raise concern “to a new level.”</p>
<p>After the hearing, Pettis <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/was-a-usda-scientist-muzzled-because-of-his-bee-research/2016/03/02/462720b6-c9fb-11e5-a7b2-5a2f824b02c9_story.html">told</a> the Washington Post that he spoke privately with Scott, who criticized him for failing to follow “the script.”</p>
<p>CropLife America, notably, celebrated the hearing performance for its
heavy focus on nonpesticide-related factors for bee decline. “One thing
that we hope was made clear during the hearing was the crop protection
industry’s commitment to addressing this issue,” Jay Vroom, then the
president of CropLife America, said in a <a href="http://www.croplifeamerica.org/news/2014/4/29/croplife-america-supports-balanced-government-dialogue-on-pollinator-health">statement</a>.</p>
<p>Campaign finance records show that CropLife America, just weeks after the hearing, gave <a href="https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/?data_type=processed&committee_id=C00482737&contributor_name=croplife&min_date=04%2F01%2F2014&max_date=06%2F01%2F2014">$3,500</a> to Scott, who then <a href="http://www.croplifeamerica.org/news/2014/9/11/croplife-america-supports-hr-5447">sponsored</a> legislation to solve the bee crisis through exemptions to expedite the approval of pesticides used to control the Varroa mite.</p>
<p>And two months after the hearing, according to the Post, Pettis was
demoted, losing his role managing the USDA bee lab in Beltsville,
Maryland. Pettis later left the government and now serves as president
of Apimondia.</p></div><div><div><div><p><img alt="BROOKINGS,SD-JAN 11: Entomologist Jonathan Lundgren is a USDA scientist who is struggling to get out his research that may provide some answers to the dwindling honey bee population. (Photo by Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post via Getty Images)" src="https://theintercept.com/wp-uploads/sites/1/2020/01/GettyImages-513454262-edit-1579299286-1024x685.jpg"></p><p><img alt="BROOKINGS,SD-JAN 11: Entomologist Jonathan Lundgren is a USDA scientist who is struggling to get out his research that may provide some answers to the dwindling honey bee population. (Photo by Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post via Getty Images)" src="https://theintercept.com/wp-uploads/sites/1/2020/01/GettyImages-513454296-edti-1579300986-1024x685.jpg"></p></div></div><p><span>Entomologist
Jonathan Lundgren, who is researching answers for what might be causing
the dwindling honeybee population, on Jan. 9, 2016.</span><span>Photos: Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post/Getty Images</span></p></div><div><p>The
Post also details the story of a prominent USDA scientist, Jonathan
Lundgren, who researched the dangers posed by neonics to pollinators and
spoke publicly about the issue. In 2015, Lundgren suddenly faced
suspensions and an internal government investigation over misconduct, a
push he believes was motivated by industry for his role in speaking out
on pesticides.</p>
<p>“I guess I started asking the wrong questions, pursuing risk
assessments of neonicotinoids on a lot of different field crop seeds
used throughout the U.S. and how they were affecting non-target species
like pollinators,” Lundgren told The Intercept.</p>
<p>The USDA did not respond to The Intercept’s request for comment. It
told the Post that the suspensions had nothing to do with his research.
They were for “conduct unbecoming a federal employee” and “violating
travel regulations.”</p>
<p>Lundgren now runs Blue Dasher Farm in South Dakota, a research effort
to develop ways to rotate diverse sets of crops as a way to increase
yields and suppress pests naturally. There are few institutions, he
noted, where researchers can pursue science independent of industry
influence. “Universities have become dependent on extramural funds,
entire programs are bankrolled by these pesticide companies, chemical
companies,” he added.</p></div><blockquote><span></span><p>The regulatory system in the U.S. assumes chemical products are generally safe until proven hazardous.</p></blockquote><div><p>“Generally,
we see the U.S. waiting longer than the EU to take action on a variety
of pesticides and other chemicals,” said Childress, the organizer with
Pesticide Action Network North America. Part of the divergence,
Childress continued, stems from a regulatory system in the U.S. that
assumes chemical products are generally safe until proven hazardous. In
contrast, the EU tends to use the “precautionary principle,” removing
products that may cause harm, and requiring proof of safety before
allowing them to return to market.</p>
<p>Another major factor, Childress noted, is the widespread corporate
capture of American regulatory institutions. The EPA, for instance,
employs 11 former <a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/06/28/epas-new-water-safety-official-is-a-lobbyist-with-deep-ties-to-the-dakota-access-pipeline/">lobbyists</a> — including its administrator, Andrew Wheeler, who previously worked for <a href="https://theintercept.com/2018/02/07/coal-lobbyist-andrew-wheeler-epa-deputy-confirmation/">coal interests in opposition to climate regulations</a> — in senior positions.</p>
<p>The pesticide industry also maintains a long history of underhanded methods to discredit its critics.</p>
<p>Monsanto deployed aggressive tactics to punish critics of Roundup,
the most widely used herbicide in the world and the company’s marquee
product over the last several decades. Emails released through ongoing
litigation in California last year showed that the firm used its
lobbyists to <a href="https://theintercept.com/2019/08/23/monsanto-republicans-cancer-research/">orchestrate a campaign</a> in
Congress to criticize and defund scientists with the World Health
Organization’s cancer research affiliate, after that body had declared
that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is a “probable
carcinogen.” Many of the documents detailing Monsanto’s role in shaping
the public discourse around glyphosate were released during the course
of class-action lawsuits filed by cancer victims who blame the company
for their illnesses.</p>
<p>Syngenta became infamous after its tactics against University of
California, Berkeley Professor Tyrone Hayes were reported. Hayes’s
research showed that the company’s signature herbicide, atrazine,
appeared to disrupt the sexual development of frogs.</p>
<p>The company <a href="https://100r.org/2013/06/pest-control-syngentas-secret-campaign-to-discredit-atrazines-critics/">dispatched</a>
people to follow and record Hayes at public speaking events,
commissioned a psychological profile of the professor, and worked with a
variety of writers to smear Hayes as “non-credible” and a liability to
academics who considered working with him. The effort to sideline Hayes
and his research, which <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/686401-100reporters-syngenta-clare-howard-investigation.html">included</a>
coordination with industry-friendly academics, was revealed in a series
of court documents that were disclosed over litigation involving claims
that Syngenta had polluted local water sources with atrazine.</p>
<p>In the two lawsuits against Syngenta and Monsanto, subpoenaed
documents revealed that both Syngenta and Monsanto maintain a list of “<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/686401-100reporters-syngenta-clare-howard-investigation.html">third party stakeholders</a>,” including free market think tanks and <a href="http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/monsanto-documents-chart-101217.pdf">scientists</a> the industry could turn to for messaging support.</p>
<p>Many of the think tanks and individuals included in the roster now
play a prominent role in the neonic debate. The American Council on
Health and Science, which has <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/american-council-science-health-leaked-documents-fundraising/">relied</a>
on corporate funding from Monsanto, Bayer, and Syngenta, has published
over a dozen articles disputing the dangers posed by neonics.</p>
<p>In one email revealed through the Monsanto-Roundup litigation, Daniel
Goldstein, a Monsanto official, wrote to colleagues in all-caps to
support the council’s work: “I can assure you I am not all starry eyed
about ACSH- they have PLENTY of warts- but: You WILL NOT GET A BETTER
VALUE FOR YOUR DOLLAR than ACSH.” The bottom of the email included <a href="https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/johnson-trial/PTX-0321-Monsanto-Email-Re-ACSH-2015.pdf">hyperlinks</a> to articles criticizing demands to regulate both glyphosate and neonic pesticides.</p>
<p>The Heartland Institute, one of the think tanks in Syngenta’s third-party stakeholder list, which has received <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/%281-15-2012%29%202012%20Fundraising%20Plan.pdf">Bayer donations</a> in the past, has published articles deriding research critical of neonics as “<a href="https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/activist-junk-science-breeds-bad-policy">junk science</a>.”</p>
<p>“The pesticide industry is using Big Tobacco’s PR tactics to try and
spin the science about their products’ links to bee declines and delay
action while they keep profiting,” said Archer, whose group, Friends of
the Earth, has documented the lobbying tactics of pesticide makers.</p>
<p><span><img src="https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2020/01/Dropcaps-W-1579296667.png?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90" alt="W"></span><u>hen neonics hit</u>
the market three decades ago, they were the first new class of
insecticide invented in nearly 50 years, and their use skyrocketed.</p>
<p>As early as the late 17th century, farmers found that they could
grind tobacco plants and use nicotine extract to kill beetles on crops.
Nicotine acts as an organic insecticide, binding to nerve receptors and
causing paralysis and death in aphids, white flies, and other
plant-eating insects.</p>
<p>Attempts to use nicotine for a mass-market pesticide, however,
frustrated scientists. In early research, sunlight diluted the
effectiveness of nicotine-based products. But that changed just over
three decades ago, when Bayer scientists at Nihon Bayer Agrochem, the
firm’s Japanese subsidiary, <a href="https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1050&context=mes_capstones">first synthesized</a>
neonicotinoids in the 1980s — a compound that not only withstood heat
and sunlight, but could be applied to the root or seed of a plant and
remain effective for that plant’s entire lifespan.</p></div><blockquote><span></span><p>Neonics were hailed as the “Goldilocks compound” because they are “not too hard, not too soft, but just right.”</p></blockquote><div><p>The
new chemical came just in time. Farmers and regulators were seeking
alternatives to another class of pesticides — organophosphates, nerve
agents sprayed on crops — that had been found to cause cancer in humans.
Initial studies of neonics showed that the compound was acutely toxic
to insects but unlikely to cause harm to mammals.</p>
<p>As one scientist for Bayer described the invention in a 1993 Science magazine article <a href="https://go.gale.com/ps/anonymous?p=AONE&sw=w&issn=00368075&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA14398133&sid=googleScholar&linkaccess=fulltext">hailing</a>
the introduction of the new class of chemicals, neonics were the
“Goldilocks compound” because they are “not too hard, not too soft, but
just right.”</p>
<p>And because seeds could be pretreated with neonics, which were
absorbed and expressed through the tissue, nectar, and pollen, they
could be also produced on an industrial scale, providing agriculture
crops with an efficient insect-killing capability without the need for
expensive spray treatments or constant reapplication.</p>
<p>In other words, farmers could soak the ground and seeds with enormous
amounts of the compound to avoid problems from pests in the future. The
delivery mechanism saved money for farmers but set the conditions for
chronic overuse of the pesticides.</p></div><div><div><p><img src="https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2020/01/Imidacloprid-layout-3-tint-1579299443.gif" alt="Imidacloprid-layout-3-tint-1579299443"></p><p class="gmail-caption">Estimated
agricultural use of imidacloprid. Information compiled from the U.S.
Geological Survey’s Pesticide National Synthesis Project.</p>
<p class="gmail-caption">
Map: USGS National Water-Quality Assessment, The Intercept</p></div></div><div><p>The
first commercial neonic, imidacloprid, was registered with the EPA in
1994 and sold as a potato seed treatment. Business boomed as neonic
products spread worldwide to Japan, France, Germany, and South Africa.
In the U.S., it became a popular standard seed and root treatment for
corn, cotton, soybeans, almonds, and a range of fruits and vegetables.</p>
<p>Neonics were even used for household applications. Bayer produced
imidacloprid as a flea treatment on pets throughout the U.S. The
Advantage line of flea control took off, with a marketing campaign
featuring the Jack Russell terrier “Eddie” from the television show
“Frasier” and a 30-foot inflatable flea in Times Square.</p>
<p>Chemical Week called the introduction of neonics a “renaissance for
the U.S. insecticides industry” providing “environmentally friendly
products.” The Columbus Dispatch, in an article for home gardeners about
ways to deliver a “surgical strike” against pests, called for consumers
to consider Bayer’s Merit soil treatment, which the paper called
“virtually non-toxic.”</p>
<p>The swift adoption of the compound instantly made Bayer, which had
previously profited largely from its pharmaceutical line of products, a
worldwide player in the agrochemical industry.</p></div><blockquote><span></span><p>“Imidacloprid is our most important product,” the head of Bayer’s pesticide division told investors in 2008.</p></blockquote><div><p>In 2003, at a forum hosted by Goldman Sachs, Bayer <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6594022-Goldman-Sachs-Ag-Forum-2003-02-27.html">listed</a>
Confidor, Premise, and Gaucho, several seed treatments based on neonic
compounds, among its top-performing products in a presentation outlining
the company’s performance metrics. Another investor presentation, given
by Bayer executives in Lyon, France, projected rapid growth from the
neonic products, estimating that the firm, which had sales of close to
400 million euros from the portfolio in 1998, would more than double to <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6574596-Bayer-CropScience-Investor-Days-2005-Scheitza-CP.html">850 million</a> euros by 2010.</p>
<p>“Imidacloprid is our most important product,” Friedrich Berschauer,
then-head of Bayer’s pesticide division, told investors during a
conference call in 2008, according to a transcript of his remarks.
Company disclosures underscore Berschauer’s remarks: During that fiscal
year, the company reported 932 million euros in sales for its top two
neonic compounds.</p>
<p>In 2009, the global neonic market <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20565065">brought</a>
in $2.1 billion dollars for the largest pesticide producers. Other
agribusiness interests invested heavily in the market. Monsanto began<a href="http://www.utcrops.com/BlogStuff/2011AcceleronOptions.pdf"> offering</a>
neonic-based seed treatments through its popular Acceleron product for
corn, soybeans, and cotton. Switzerland-based Syngenta rolled out two
neonic seed treatments, Actara and Cruiser, quickly positioning itself
as a leading insecticide firm alongside Bayer. Many of the early
compounds of neonics are no longer patent-protected, allowing other
businesses to compete for the market. Valent, BASF (which acquired part
of Bayer’s neonic portfolio as a condition of its merger with Monsanto),
and Sumitomo Chemical are also leading neonic producers.</p>
<p>The first restrictions on neonics in the EU, announced late in 2013,
raised alarm in the industry. “The number for the full year as a
consequence of the suspension is about $75 million,” noted John Mack,
then-Syngenta’s chief executive officer on a call with investors the
following year, referring to the decrease in revenue as a result of the
decision. The executives were quick to point out, however, the full
brunt of the restriction had been limited because many EU states
obtained exemptions from the suspension rule.</p>
<p>In another call with investors, Mack declared that there “is no
relationship between” the use of neonics “and the causality of bee
decline,” and said he was certain regulators in the U.S. would not take
the European approach.</p>
<p>Speaking with investors 2018, Liam Condon, a Bayer executive in
charge of pesticide products, warned that the neonic ban in France alone
had cost the firm 80 million euros. The wider restrictions imposed on
the chemical, Condon continued, “drags our entire European results
down.”</p>
<p>Bayer no longer breaks out individual product revenue in its investor
reports. Previous financial reporting has suggested that neonics
represent as much as 20 percent of its sales. The company’s annual
report in 2018 showed that the company’s insecticide division produced
more than 1.3 billion euros in revenue.</p>
<p>Werner Baumann, chair of Bayer’s board, announcing its acquisition of
Monsanto in 2016, declared that the deal would create “a global leader
in the agricultural industry,” delivering insecticides and seed
treatments.</p>
<p>The global neonic market generated $4.42 billion in revenue in 2018,
roughly doubling over the previous decade, according to new figures
provided to The Intercept from Agranova, a research firm that tracks the
industry.</p></div><div><div><p><img src="https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2020/01/GettyImages-969020550-1579299500.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90" alt="Beekeepers take part in a demonstration at the Esplanade des Invalides in Paris on June 7, 2018, during a national day of action of French beekeepers. - The National Union of French Apiculture (Union Nationale de lApiculture Francaise - UNAF) and the French Federation of Professional Beekeepers (Federation Française des Apiculteurs Professionnels - FFAP) have called for a national day of action to ask the State and the President of the Republic to launch an exceptional support plan for French beekeepers and to restore a viable environment for bee colonies and pollinators. (Photo by FRANCOIS GUILLOT / AFP) (Photo credit should read FRANCOIS GUILLOT/AFP via Getty Images)"></p><p class="gmail-caption">Beekeepers
take part in a demonstration at the Esplanade des Invalides in Paris on
June 7, 2018, during a national day of action of French beekeepers.</p>
<p class="gmail-caption">
Photo: Francois Guillot/AFP/Getty Images</p></div></div><div><p><span><img src="https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2020/01/Dropcaps-T-2-1579296736.png?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90" alt="T"></span><u>he evidence entangling</u> neonicotinoids with bee die-offs began to surface almost as soon as they hit the market.</p>
<p>In the early 1990s, in France, several bee hives near fields planted
with neonicotinoids collapsed suddenly, and beekeepers observed mass bee
die-offs in the vicinity of sunflower fields treated with Bayer’s
imidacloprid-based Gaucho.</p>
<p>The French beekeepers mounted a sustained pressure campaign,
including demonstrations of hundreds marching in Paris and outside of
Bayer’s factory in Cormery, in central France.</p>
<p>The beekeepers observed that their bees were disoriented and unable
to forage, and weakened to a point where disease and parasitic
infections spread rapidly, destroying thousands of hives. Beekeepers
found bees trembling and dying on the ground, a syndrome they nicknamed
“mad bee disease.” They blamed neonics, but Bayer maintained that the
chemicals caused no harm.</p>
<p>“We don’t believe the insecticide poses any risks,” Peter Brain, a regulatory affairs official with Bayer, told reporters.</p>
<p>In 1999, facing mounting pressure from farmers, the French government moved to <a href="https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1050&context=mes_capstones">temporarily ban</a> the use of imidacloprid, though other neonicotinoids continued to be used. Annual hive loss continued.</p>
<p>In 2008, officials in Italy, Germany, and Slovenia observed that the
sowing of fields with neonic-treated seeds correlated with nearby mass
bee die-offs. In one region of Germany, beekeepers reported the loss of
11,500 bee colonies following the planting of nearby canola fields with
neonic-treated seeds. Similar observations across the continent led to
the temporary restriction of commonly used neonic products in all three
countries that year.</p>
<p>The following year, a group of 70 scientists, including prominent
biologists, toxicologists, entomologists, and other specialists in
Europe <a href="https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2019/08/29/la-confrerie-des-insectes-ces-scientifiques-independants-qui-enquetent-sur-la-disparition-des-abeilles_5504190_3244.html">formed</a>
the Task Force on Systemic Pesticides, an ad hoc group to study neonics
and other systemic pesticides. The task force worked to conduct
research independent of industry.</p>
<p>Over the years, more and more research appeared to confirm that
neonics were not only endangering nontarget insects. In the journal
Science, a study confirmed that field-realistic applications of neonics
reduced bumblebee fertility by 85 percent. The United Kingdom-based
advocacy group BugLife <a href="https://www.beyondpesticides.org/assets/media/documents/pollinators/Neonicotinoid%20insecticides%20report-1.pdf">released</a>
research that compiled years of academic studies showing that
neonicotinoids appeared to be damaging the populations of honeybees,
native bees, and other nontarget invertebrates.</p>
<p>The Task Force on Systemic Pesticides brought together over a
thousand peer-reviewed studies, concluding that wide-scale use of
neonics, along with fipronil, another popular systemic pesticide, were
causing “widespread, chronic impacts upon global biodiversity.” The
group noted that neonic pesticides linger for long periods in the soil
and were found to be contaminating fields and waterways far from
agricultural sites. The scientists called for an <a href="http://www.tfsp.info/assets/WIA_2015.pdf">urgent</a> reduction in the use of the chemicals.</p>
<p>Growing backlash against neonics pushed the EU into action. In 2012,
the European Food Safety Authority, the leading pesticide regulator in
the EU, released a <a href="https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2668">risk assessment</a>
finding that the three most widely used neonicotinoids posed acute
risks to bees. The finding set into motion an effort backed by most EU
states to <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2013/485/oj">suspend</a> the use of neonicotinoids on outdoor flowering plants for two years.</p>
<p>The mounting pressure created a need for the pesticide industry to
push back with its own research. In fact, one of the greatest victories
for the industry was its effort to cultivate the most influential bee
scientists in the U.S.</p></div><div><div><p><img src="https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2020/01/bees019034-1579302860.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90" alt="bees019034-1579302860"></p><p class="gmail-caption">Dennis vanEngelsdorp.</p>
<p class="gmail-caption">
Photo: David Yellen</p></div></div><div><p><span><img src="https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2020/01/Dropcaps-T-1579296783.png?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90" alt="T"></span><u>he first wave</u>
of headlines in the U.S. about the rapid decline of bees started in
2006 as beekeepers in Pennsylvania reported drastic hive losses. Other
beekeepers also reported staggering losses over the winter that year, at
an average ranging around 30 percent, wiping out more than a fourth of
the 2.4 million colonies in the country.</p>
<p>The mysterious crisis was termed “colony collapse disorder” in the
media. Dennis vanEngelsdorp, then-serving as Pennsylvania acting chief
apiary inspector and studying at Penn State University, found himself at
the center of the story. “It’s just causing so much death so quickly
that it’s startling,” he told the Philadelphia Inquirer. He started with
autopsies of dead bees in Pennsylvania, but soon came into contact with
beekeepers in Georgia, Florida, and California reporting similar
losses.</p>
<p>A team of other prominent bee experts, including vanEngelsdorp,
Washington State University entomologist Walter “Steve” Sheppard, and
other prominent scientists worked to investigate the crisis. “This is
like C.S.I. for agriculture,” said one of the academics on the project,
Columbia University’s W. Ian Lipkin, in an interview with the New York
Times.</p>
<p>VanEngelsdorp, alongside Jerry Hayes, then-Florida chief apiary inspector and president of the Apiary Inspectors of America, <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0004071">pioneered</a>
an effort to survey beekeepers throughout the country to track colony
collapse disorder. Bees were sent to his lab and examined for cause of
death. VanEngelsdorp started a foundation, the Bee Informed Partnership,
to formalize the survey and continue research into possible factors for
the disorder.</p>
<p>In interviews with national news outlets, local media, and television
stations across the country, vanEngelsdorp became an overnight
celebrity. In 2008, he appeared <a href="https://www.pbs.org/video/nature-silence-of-the-bees/">prominently</a>
in the award-winning documentary “Silence of the Bees,” depicted as
leading the research effort around collapsing bee colonies, and
also recorded a well-received TED Talk, “A Plea for Bees.”</p>
<p>In his TED Talk, vanEngelsdorp<a href="https://www.ted.com/talks/dennis_vanengelsdorp_a_plea_for_bees/transcript#t-763390"> stressed</a>
that honeybee colonies could be rebuilt, given that commercial bee
farmers can split a hive into two or buy queens through the mail. But
the danger of collapsing bee colonies went beyond the European honeybee,
which is used widely for pollinating American agriculture. Native bees
were also disappearing at an alarming rate, with no commercial effort to
revive them. Bats were disappearing too, he lamented, “and there’s no
money to study that.”</p></div><blockquote><span></span><p>“Imagine if every one of three cows died. The National Guard would be out,” vanEngelsdorp said in 2013.</p></blockquote><div><p>The
following year, in September 2009, vanEngelsdorp appeared alongside
Pettis at Apimondia. During this period in his career, vanEngelsdorp
generally suggested in media interviews that several factors were likely
to blame for bee loss. The decline, he told a local paper in Missouri
in 2007, could be attributed to “mites and associated diseases, some
unknown pathogenic disease and pesticide contamination or poisoning.”
The research he presented at Apimondia concluded that “interactions
between pesticides and pathogens could be a major contributor to
increased mortality of honey bee colonies.”</p>
<p>In the following years, vanEngelsdorp used his voice to dismiss
concerns with neonics in the media. His shift in rhetoric coincided with
a push by the pesticide industry, in response to rising calls for
pesticide restrictions to stem bee losses, began a push to rebrand
itself as bee-friendly.</p>
<p>In 2013, he told <a href="https://issuu.com/pacificsun/docs/2013_06_07.pac.section1">one reporter</a>,
“Imagine if every one of three cows died. The National Guard would be
out.” He continued: “Sure, neonics may be a problem some of the time.
But not all, or in my humble opinion, most of the time.”</p>
<p>“The jury’s still out,” he <a href="https://www.post-gazette.com/life/garden/2014/06/15/Big-business-on-the-line-in-debate-over-bees-insecticides/stories/201406120171">told</a>
the Raleigh News & Observer, when asked about role of the pesticide
in bee decline in 2014. The Associated Press quoted vanEngelsdorp<a href="https://apnews.com/0a90958c813946bd928443f07479255b/apnewsbreak-epa-says-pesticide-harms-bees-some-cases"> declaring</a>,
“I am not convinced that neonics are a major driver of colony loss” in
2016. “In many cases, [neonicotinoids] are actually the safest
alternative,” he was quoted as saying in another article, expressing
skepticism over the push to ban the compound.</p>
<p><span>When asked about his seeming shift, </span><span>vanEngelsdorp
said in an email that his work focused on honeybees, but he is concerned
with the threat posed to other pollinators and insect life. In
Maryland, he wrote, high levels of mite infestations “would explain lots
of [honey bee] mortality.”</span></p>
<p><span>“I should stress that I am speaking about honey bees, not
native bees, and the effects of neonics on non-target non-honey bees
(Honey bees have a reserve work force that can be lost without
consequence as they are social organisms and other non-honey bee bees
don’t) is much more pronounced and concerning,” vanEngelsdorp wrote.</span></p>
<p>Around that time, vanEngelsdorp <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140419050913/http:/www.beeologics.com/honey-bee-health-summit/media-resources/">joined</a>
Monsanto’s Honey Bee Advisory Council, a company-backed effort, and
appeared at the company’s Honey Bee Health Summit in 2013 as a
spokesperson. That same year, Project Apis m., a foundation heavily
funded by Bayer, donated to vanEngelsdorp’s nonprofit, the Bee Informed
Project, and has since provided at least $700,000 to the lab, according
to public tax filings.</p>
<p><span>In an email, v</span><span>anEngelsdorp said that although that
he has received one grant funding stream from Bayer, that award came in
last year and “it would be hard to argue it influenced past work.” The
funding from Project Apis m. to vanEngelsdorp’s Bee Informed Project, he
added, came from Costco, not the agricultural industry. Other corporate
interests, including the Almond Board of California and the General
Mills Foundation, have also directly funded the Bee Informed Project.</span><span><br>
</span><span><br>
</span><span>VanEngelsdorp said that his lab has never received direct funding from pesticide companies. </span><span><br>
</span><span><br>
</span><span>Bayer, as part of its Healthy Hives 2020 initiative, has dedicated at least </span><a href="https://www.cropscience.bayer.us/news/press-releases/2019/bayer-commits-to-healthy-hives-2020-initiative"><span>$1.3 million</span></a><span>
to the project in collaboration with Project Apis m., which counts
Bayer as one of its largest donors, though the company does not break
down individual donor amounts.</span></p>
<p><span>The University of Maryland professor also explained that he
felt conflicted about joining Monsanto’s advisory board, a position that
ended in 2019. </span><span><br>
</span><span><br>
</span><span>“The purpose of this board is to help guide the development
of new tools to help control Varroa, which I think, and the data
suggest – are the biggest drivers of loss,” wrote vanEngelsdorp. “So it
was a big struggle when I was asked to join the advisory board (which
included several beekeepers), because – who wants to have an association
with Big Ag?”</span></p>
<p><span>“Do I feel conflicted? – all the time,” vanEngelsdorp told The
Intercept. ”But do I think my involvement with encouraging the
development of a desperately needed new mite control skews my view of
drivers of honey [bee] health. No. I think the data is clear.” </span><span><br>
</span><span><br>
</span><span>He added, “The world is a complicated place. Full of gray. I
just have to believe the science will show truth, and hope we can get
there by keeping things cordial, and respectful of the idea that people
taking different paths towards the same end (save the bees) is not bad.”</span></p>
<p><span>“I’m an environmentalist – so have been and continue to be very
concerned and vocal about protecting the earth and its biome,” he
wrote. “I am certain that in all interviews on this topic I clearly say
– the widespread use of neonic coated seeds is a short sighted,
wasteful and environmentally unsustainable way of using this product. I
strongly advocate for wise use. Use it when you know you need it and not
unless you know you do.’ But that quote never gets picked up. But it’s
what I think and have thought for a long time.”</span></p>
<p>Danielle Downey, the executive of Project Apis m., said the group is
“transparent about where donated funds come from and what we use them
for, keeping in mind donor privacy,” in a statement to The Intercept.
“Project Apis m. does keep abreast of the science regarding bee health,
which allows us to support industry-relevant projects.”</p>
<p>Downey did not take a position on regulating neonics, and noted that
“regarding bans and regulations of pesticides, countries which apply
different precautionary and risk assessment paradigms, may reach
different outcomes.”</p>
<p>In 2013, vanEngelsdorp also <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0077193#authcontrib">edited</a>
a controversial paper authored by a group of consultants that claimed
that thiamethoxam, a neonic produced by Syngenta, posed “a low risk to
honey bees” when applied to oilseed, rape, and maize. In a section of
its website titled “Bee Decline,” Syngenta <a href="http://www.syngenta-us.com/beehealth/currentbeedecline.aspx">cites</a> the study to claim that “there is no direct correlation between neonicotinoid use and poor bee health.”</p>
<p>The paper, which was cited by Syngenta to apply for an exemption in
the United Kingdom to the EU’s newly imposed moratorium on neonic
products, was later widely panned. In a scathing article for
Environmental Sciences Europe, a group of entomologists <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5045128/">claimed</a>
that the vanEngelsdorp-edited study was not based on “truthful data and
methodologies,” arguing that it used seed treatment at
lower-than-recommended rates and that the experiment was poorly
designed.</p></div><blockquote><span></span><p>“Do
I feel conflicted? – all the time,” vanEngelsdorp said. “The world is a
complicated place. Full of gray. I just have to believe the science
will show truth.</p></blockquote><div><p>Another group of scientists at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland also eviscerated the vanEngelsdorp-edited paper, <a href="https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2017/01/university-scientists-dispute-syngenta-study-conclusion-pesticide-low-risk-bees/">noting</a> that it used no formal statistical analysis and came to its conclusion by vaguely inspecting the data. They <a href="https://risweb.st-andrews.ac.uk/portal/en/researchoutput/an-experiment-of-the-impact-of-a-neonicotinoid-pesticide-on-honey-bees-the-value-of-a-formal-analysis-of-the-data(e8f778c3-f847-46f3-8a29-5e7bbdb2c219).html">mocked</a> the method as simply reflecting “the prior beliefs of those involved.” The House of Commons Library, in a<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6592554-House-of-Commons-Library-Briefing-Paper-on-Bees.html"> briefing paper</a>
on neonics, noted that the thiamethoxam study faced criticism for
lacking rigor, and that all five of authors of the study “were current
or former employees of Syngenta or had been paid by Syngenta for their
work.”</p>
<p>VanEngelsdorp also lent his name to a splashy advocacy effort on
behalf of the pesticide industry. CropLife America, Bayer, and Syngenta
launched the Honey Bee Health Coalition, a new group focused on research
into the Varroa mite and other nonpesticide-related causes of bee
decline. The group was officially coordinated by the Keystone Policy
Center, a supposedly independent third party, in conjunction with
beekeeper associations and environmentalists. Records show, however,
that the Keystone Policy Center is largely funded by major corporations,
including Bayer and Syngenta. And internal <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6659590-HBHC-Email.html#document/p24/a544340">documents</a>
from the Honey Bee Health Coalition show that its communications to
beekeepers were reviewed by its bloc of growers and pesticide company
members, including DuPont, CropLife America, Syngenta, and the
Agricultural Retailers Association. Farmers and beekeepers paid as
little as $500 to join the organization while corporate members paid as
high as <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6659592-HBHC-Funding-Members.html">$100,000</a> in dues.</p>
<p><span>Marques Chavez, a spokesperson for the Keystone Policy Center,
which organizes the Honey Bee Health Coalition, noted in a statement to
The Intercept that the group “supports honey bee health and tackles
complex problems in agriculture and beyond by bringing diverse
perspectives together.” The statement did not address the proportion of
pesticide industry influence, but said that the group maintains a public
charter that “outlines the structure and decision-making process
utilized by the coalition to identify, refine, and finalize the idea and
deliverables that reflect the diverse input and collaborative effort of
our members.”</span></p>
<p>Jerry Hayes, the former Florida apiary inspector, joined Monsanto and
became the company’s representative at beekeeper conferences around the
country and helped pitch Monsanto’s research into genetic solutions for
bees to skeptical beekeepers. Hayes also helped with the launch of the
Honey Bee Health Coalition. He <a href="https://www.wired.com/2016/08/jerry-hayes-how-to-save-the-bees-monsanto/">recruited</a> vanEngelsdorp to serve as one of the first scientists on the coalition’s steering committee.</p>
<p>They weren’t only ones. The industry also recruited bee industry
voices to be the face of the new rebranding. Richard Rogers, an academic
consultant and <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/richard-e-l-dick-rogers-0b275111/">former adjunct professor</a> at Acadia University in Nova Scotia, <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.488.3913&rep=rep1&type=pdf">produced</a> Bayer-backed <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=X96cDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA78&dq=%22prince+edward+island%22+bayer&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj9k7_Y6onnAhXWvp4KHRlZBGMQ6wEwAHoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22prince%20edward%20island%22%20bayer&f=false">research</a>
in Canada in the early 2000s discounting the dangers posed to bees by
neonics applied to potato plants on Prince Edward Island. Rogers was
brought on to help lead the Bayer Bee Care initiative when the center
was opened in 2012. Dr. Helen Thompson, a leading official environmental
official in the United Kingdom who had opposed the E.U.’s directive to
suspend the use of neonics,<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/26/government-bee-scientist-pesticide-firm"> joined</a> Syngenta.</p>
<p>Washington State University entomologist Sheppard was also among the
other prominent bee scientists to accept the pesticide industry’s
outreach. The same year of the launch of the Honey Bee Health Coalition,
Sheppard <a href="https://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/02/prweb11569878.htm">joined</a>
Bayer for a roadshow the company sponsored called the Bee Care Tour. He
later joined the company steering committee for its “Healthy Hives
2020” initiative.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6659603-Healthy-Hives-Workshop-Trip.html">Emails</a> obtained by The Intercept <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6660325-WSU-Bayer.html">show</a> a friendly relationship between the pesticide firms and the recruited academics.</p>
<p>In one exchange, with David Fischer, the manager of Bayer’s Bee Care
Center, vanEngelsdorp was asked how to respond to reporters on how to
calculate annual hive loss. The Maryland academic <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6509361-DVE-Bayer-BeeInformed.html">suggested</a>
a method that diminishes any winter losses of hives by factoring in new
hives that have been split off from strong hives, though he noted that
such a method “‘lowers’ the loss rate” and has been rejected by European
beekeepers.</p></div><div><div><p><img src="https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2020/01/email-redact-1579302782.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90&w=1000&h=1139" alt="WSU-email"></p><p class="gmail-caption">Daniel
Schmehl, an official with Bayer, asked bee scientist Walter “Steve”
Sheppard to provide quotes explaining why “the partnership with Bayer
Bee Care Center is important for your bee research.”</p>
<p class="gmail-caption">
Screenshot: The Intercept</p></div></div><div><p>Daniel
Schmehl, an official with Bayer, asked Sheppard to provide quotes
explaining why “the partnership with Bayer Bee Care Center is important
for your bee research,” as well as other blurbs the company <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6660325-WSU-Bayer.html">could use</a>. Sheppard appears regularly on Bayer press releases and publications as part of the company’s commitment to bee health.</p>
<p>In another exchange, Rogers, the former adjunct Acadia University
professor and now official with Bayer’s Bee Care Center, wrote in 2015
to Sheppard and Jamie Ellis, an associate professor at the University of
Florida, to publish a “paper on the definition of a healthy honey bee
colony.” Rogers<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6593971-Ellis-Emails.html"> noted</a>
that he had worked on a draft but suggested that, “for the best optics,
maybe you or Steve, or someone other than a Bayer staff member should
be the lead author.” Ellis agreed and wrote back that he “understood
your concern about Bayer staff taking the lead.”</p>
<p>VanEngelsdorp’s shift away from concern about the role of neonics is
captured in another documentary about the plight of the bees.</p>
<p>In 2015, the website FiveThirtyEight produced a mini-documentary
series, including a feature on the “Fight to Save the Mighty Honeybee.”
The <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-collectors-beekeeper-honeybees/">film</a>,
which was accepted into the Sundance Film Festival, traces
vanEngelsdorp in his lab and in the field, exclusively discussing the
Varroa mite. Unlike his previous appearance in documentaries about bee
decline, the video made no mention of neonics or any other pesticide
stress to bee health.</p>
<p>Bayer was thrilled with the documentary. Sarah Myers, an event manager with the chemical company, <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6659602-FiveThirtyEight.html">asked</a>
vanEngelsdorp for permission to feature the video on the company’s
website. VanEngelsdorp politely let the company know that he did not own
the copyright and referred Myers to the producers at FiveThirtyEight’s
parent company. Bayer’s Bee Care Center <a href="https://beehealth.bayer.us/~/media/Bayer%20CropScience/Country-United-States-Internet/Documents/Our%20Commitment/Bee%20Health/bee%20care%20buzz%20newsletter/2015-April-newsletter.ashx">showcased</a> the film.</p>
<p>In an <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6659604-Syngenta-Attorney.html">exchange</a>
with Paul Hoekstra, a regulatory official with Syngenta, vanEngelsdorp
was thanked for agreeing to speak to John Brown, a Canadian attorney
helping fight a contentious lawsuit over the registration of neonics.</p></div><blockquote><span></span><p>“I
think they were using this group as a PR advantage, but by the same
token we have no money in the beekeeping industry,” Hayes said.</p></blockquote><div><p>The
relationship has continued. Earlier this month, the American Beekeeping
Federation hosted its 2020 convention. The largest sponsor of the event
was Bayer, which <a href="https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/healthy-hives-2020-hosts-symposium-at-american-beekeeping-federation-conference-300983134.html">showcased</a>
a series of talks at the conference to tout the company’s commitment to
bee health. Sheppard was featured in a Bayer promotional video <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7JsdEMKcaE&feature=youtu.be">screened</a> at the event. Among the presentations was an address by vanEngelsdorp about mites.</p>
<p>“My association with Bayer has had no influence on my research focus
nor my research,” said Sheppard, in a statement to The Intercept that
detailed his work helping Project Apis m. identify research proposals
for honeybee health using over $1 million in funding from Bayer.</p>
<p>“I cannot speak for Bayer – but the projects funded with their money
and administered through Project Apis m. appear to be completely
unrelated to any effort to ‘prevent the restriction’ of the use of
neonicotinoids,” wrote Sheppard. “I am not naïve enough to think such a
major company does not have their own agenda for the promotion or
support of their insect control products. However, and emphatically, in
the case of the funds distributed by Project Apis m., no such connection
was apparent to either Project Apis m. or myself.”</p>
<p>Jerry Hayes retired two years ago from Monsanto after the project he
was hired to promote “just didn’t work out.” He now works as an editor
at Bee Culture magazine.</p>
<p>In an interview, Hayes said that he was proud of the work the Honey
Bee Health Coalition achieved, including the development of guides for
beekeepers to manage Varroa infestations. And he views the effort to
bring various stakeholders together in one coalition as a unique
accomplishment. But he said that pesticide corporations were largely in
the drivers’ seat.</p>
<p>“I think they were using this group as a PR advantage, but by the
same token we have no money in the beekeeping industry,” said Hayes.</p>
<p>“These guys were funding the organization, they were funding
meetings, all of us knew there were perhaps ulterior motives,” he noted.
“Without those resources, we wouldn’t be down the road a little bit to
making honeybees a little less endangered.”</p>
<p>Hayes said he had followed the controversies around neonics and was
concerned about the growing number of studies showing the threat to
nontarget insects. Though he’s concerned that restricting the chemical
could reintroduce older pesticides with a greater risk to mammals, he
added that the drive for profits have fueled the overuse of neonics.</p>
<p>“It all comes down to money. Bayer is taking care of stockholders,” said Hayes.</p>
<p>Hayes said he doesn’t believe vanEngelsdorp’s views on pesticides have been shaped by his ties to industry.</p>
<p>“He’s a good scientist,” said Hayes. “Science changes over time. I
think that science progresses and data shows different things at times,
but I don’t think Dennis is influenced by money from these other
people.”</p>
<p>“But,” Hayes added, when “chemical companies want to support Dennis
because if he can come up with solutions to honey bee health, it takes
pressure off of them, doesn’t it?”<br></p></div><div><div><p><img src="https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2020/01/GettyImages-473992522-1-1579302926.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90" alt="HOMESTEAD, FL - MAY 19: John Gentzel, the owner of J & P Apiary and Gentzel's Bees, Honey and Pollination Company, works with his honeybees on May 19, 2015 in Homestead, Florida. U.S. President Barack Obama's administration announced May 19, that the government would provide money for more bee habitat as well as research into ways to protect bees from disease and pesticides to reduce the honeybee colony losses that have reached alarming rates. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)"></p><p class="gmail-caption">The
owner of J&P Apiary and Gentzel’s Bees, Honey and Pollination
Company, works with his honeybees on May 19, 2015, in Homestead,
Florida.</p>
<p class="gmail-caption">
Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images</p></div></div><div><p><span><img src="https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2020/01/Dropcaps-D-1579296823.png?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90" alt="D"></span><u>espite a sophisticated</u>
lobbying campaign to defeat neonic restrictions, Maryland was one of
the few states to pass a law banning neonic-based products in consumer
products. Industry threw its weight against even this minor bill, which
exempts neonics in landscaping and agriculture.</p>
<p>And vanEngelsdorp played a prominent role in nearly defeating the legislation.</p>
<p>In January 2016, the University of Maryland, College Park campus held
a summit bringing corporate representatives and researchers together to
talk about solutions to the bee crisis. Maryland, California,
Massachusetts, and other states were considering restrictions on neonic
products. The Obama administration had encouraged an approach that
brought together a wide array of stakeholders, known as the Managed
Pollinator Protection Plan, or MP3, method of resolving the issue.</p>
<p>State officials tapped the Keystone Policy Center — the same chemical
industry-funded nonprofit in charge of CropLife America’s Honey Bee
Health Coalition — to manage the process.</p>
<p>VanEngelsdorp, addressing the summit, presided over a PowerPoint that
listed a Monsanto affiliation in small type at the bottom, according to
Luke Goembel, an official with the Central Maryland Beekeepers
Association.</p>
<p>The presentation, said Goembel, made the case that “Varroa mites, not
pesticides, were the primary cause of hive losses” and included “an
image of a vampire baby to represent a Varroa mite.” VanEngelsdorp, he
said, made a mocking comparison, showing a graph with a chart showing
the rise of pirate next to a chart showing the increasing loss of hives
over time, an “attempt to present the concept ‘correlation does not
prove causation,’” and to “ridicule the concern over increasing
pesticide use.”</p>
<p>“I was shocked,” Goembel said, “because the journals are full of
research that describes many avenues by which pesticides, especially
neonicotinoids, almost certainly lead to hive losses.”</p>
<p>The summit included a broad range of speakers, but beekeeper
activists complained the discussion was dominated by pesticide makers.</p>
<p>Speaker after speaker claimed that hive loss was only “due to Varroa
mites, not pesticides,” according to Bonnie Raindrop, another official
with the Central Maryland Beekeepers Association, who attended the
event. Only a small percentage of the attendees, Raindrop said, were
beekeepers, and those who did make it were separated from one another.
The rest, she said, “were people who knew nothing about bees,” including
lobbyists, lawn care professionals, and representatives of
agribusiness.</p>
<p>“They had a very controlled format,” said Raindrop, “with one
beekeeper at each table, the rest industry people, and we were asked to
make recommendations for what the MP3 policy should look like.”</p>
<p>Both Raindrop and Goembel brought up the role of neonicotinoids and
other systemic pesticides killing bees, but said other participants at
the summit shot them down.</p>
<p>The Keystone Policy Center moderators kept the conversation focused
largely on mites, “and said beekeepers weren’t doing their due diligence
to control mites using chemicals,” she added.</p>
<p><span>Asked about the beekeeper’s criticism of the Maryland summit,
the Keystone Policy Center’s spokesperson, Chavez, said in a statement
that the event “involved outreach to a wide variety of stakeholders” and
encouraged the public to view the </span><a href="https://mda.maryland.gov/plants-pests/Documents/Maryland-MP3-Summit-FinalReport.pdf"><span>final report</span></a><span> produced from the event.</span></p>
<p>One month after the summit, legislators in Annapolis, Maryland, took
up a bill to ban consumer neonics. During the House of Delegates debate
over the legislation, a panel of opponents — including representatives
from Republican Gov. Larry Hogan’s administration, pesticide industry
representatives, and the owner of commercial nursery — repeatedly cited
the survey taken by the Keystone Policy Center at the summit as evidence
that researchers did not think pesticides were a problem.</p></div><div><p>
Several cited vanEngelsdorp by name, claiming the University of Maryland
professor had provided research showing that neonicotinoids did not
pose a threat to Maryland hives.</p>
<p>At the hearing, state delegate Clarence Lam, a Democrat, noted that
hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific articles identified neonicotinoids
as a prime driver of bee decline and scoffed at the industry attempt to
use the MP3 summit as a counterexample.</p>
<p>“Presenting data like this is pretty specious,” Lam said. “It’s
marginally better than presenting data from a Facebook poll and saying
this is what the data shows and this is what the science shows.”</p>
<p>In the end, the industry blitz failed, and, later in 2016,
Maryland passed the Pollinator Protection Act. A similar measure passed
that year in Connecticut to limit the use of neonics on flowering
plants, and last year, Vermont enacted restrictions on consumer use of
neonics.</p>
<p>Regulators in Oregon, after outcry following an incident in which
50,000 bees suddenly died in a Target parking lot as the result of the
spraying of a neonic-based pesticide, have moved to prevent the use of
neonics on linden trees. But in most of the country, there are largely
no limitations on the chemical. California regulators also <a href="https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/registration/canot/2018/ca2018-01.pdf">announced</a> an effort to freeze new applications by pesticide companies that would expand the use of neonics.</p>
<p>Gary Ruskin, the co-director of U.S. Right to Know, a watchdog group
following pesticide industry influence, which shared some of the emails
obtained via records requests between industry and academics with The
Intercept, said, “vanEnglesdorp’s close ties to the pesticide industry
raise serious questions about the worth and reliability of his
research.”</p>
<p>“As companies are increasingly threatened by scientific findings,
they search for ways to blunt any independent science that may detract
from profits,” Ruskin said. “One great way to do this is to co-opt
scientists from public universities, who typically enjoy the public’s
trust.”</p>
<p>In one of the <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6659608-DVE-Blog.html">emails</a>
revealed by Ruskin’s group, vanEngelsdorp wrote to Fischer, the manager
of Bayer’s Bee Care Center, apparently irritated that Bayer had
published confidential research from his lab, and claiming the data had
been misused and posted without his permission.</p>
<p>“Tech team data is confidential so it should not be published — especially by a chemical company!” vanEngelsdorp wrote.</p>
<p>In a response, Fischer removed the line from Bayer’s blog. He also
reminded the University of Maryland academic that Bayer had invested
significant financial resources into the relationship and made it a
priority for the company.</p>
<p>“We value our work with you and other researchers and stakeholders
who have committed themselves to addressing this significant problem,”
Fischer wrote.</p>
<p>“As you are aware, perception is everything,” vanEngelsdorp responded.</p>
<p><em>Nick Surgey contributed research.</em><br></p></div></div></div></div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
</div>