@natureworksThe devil is in the detail. You say you "just don't get it" and that's because the sources you used have presented you with half-truths and manipulated facts to create an impression of the decision being utterly absurd and outrageously anti-scientific.
In reality, it's not.
> DEFRA: "We evaluate the risks very carefully and only grant temporary emergency authorisations for restricted pesticides in special circumstances when strict requirements are met and there are no alternatives."
So they don't "give permission to use" on daily basis whenever they like, but granted an one-time exception based on specific emergency.
> Twelve EU countries including France, Belgium, Denmark and Spain have given emergency authorisations for neonicotinoid use in the last three years.
So it's not exclusive UK post-Brexit arrogance but a widely accepted emergency measure applied in exceptional cases and in general it's still just as banned in the UK as in EU.
> Flowering crops which would attract pollinators could not be grown in fields treated with the pesticide for 32 months after application.
So those who use neonicotinides to respond to that one time emergency actually do seem to care about insects (even if it's in their own business interest) and take measures to reduce harm.
> For this reason, it was not possible to rule out completely a degree of risk to bees (and this is the case even with a 32-month exclusion) from flowering plants in or near the field in the years after neonicotinoid use.
So it's not like ECP stated that even one time use will result in killing all bees in UK, but simply stated it's not possible to "rule out completely a degree of risk", which is a drastically different level of risk assessment. As someone who works in risk assessment professionally, I can give the following example: you "can't rule out completely" a risk of a meteorite falling on your house tomorrow, the risk is out there and you accept it on daily basis.
Just to clarify: I'm all for a general ban on use of neonicotinides but I'm also against activism based on hype, manipulation and half-truths whose only purpose is to build a tribal, black-and-white perception of the world divided between endlessly good activists and endlessly evil farmers. If you look at the real picture you actually see a real environmentalism in action, where farming industry is doing something under strict control of regulations and in accordance to the best harm reduction practices when they have no other choice.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/202...