With bees dying
at record rates, these beekeepers are protesting
against German chemicals giant Bayer and its
insecticides. We’re the
victims. We provide a huge
service to society. Our bees pollinate
food crops. And this is the
thanks we get. For decades, studies around
the world have highlighted the dangers of certain
insecticides — something Bayer was
keen to hush up. They wanted to keep it secret.
They didn't want to publicize something which will be
damaging for the company. The aim was to stop the debate, so
they could carry on making money. These insecticides, known
as neonicotinoids, have earned Billions
for the company. A case of placing
earnings over ethics? What isn’t normal is breaking
the law, concealing facts. How influential is
the Bayer Group? And did the authorities fail
to exercise proper oversight? Breisgau in southwest Germany
is a fertile region, and home to plenty of
canola and cornfields. Christoph Koch runs
a bee farm here. He’s passionate
about what he does. His bees are like
part of the family. He had rarely experienced any
problems with pesticides. Until one spring
day 12 years ago. A new pest had appeared
in the Rhine valley and was threatening to
devastate the cornfields. To save the
harvest, the authorities allowed the
large-scale use of neonicotinoids, or neonics as
they’re also known. I could see the farmer
sowing his corn. And from one moment to the
next, the bees stopped flying. It was perfect weather, the bees were
out foraging, everything was wonderful. But as the farmer sowed his
seed, everything stopped. All the bees in the
air disappeared. The insecticide the seeds
had been treated with resulted in a
toxic dust cloud that killed 12,000 bee
colonies in the region. More than 500 million bees
suffered an agonizing death. It was the world’s worst
case of bee poisoning by legal means since bee
conservation began. It was very frustrating
and very emotional. It really got
me down. It got so bad that I couldn’t drive
over to the beehives anymore. Every time I got near, I was met
by the stench of decomposing bees, I just couldn’t
handle it anymore. During
planting, some of the red pesticide coating
the corn seeds rubbed off — and was released into
the environment. So that’s what
was sown? Yes, corn seeds dressed
with insecticide. And what
happened? You see this
red dust. That’s insecticide residue
that has rubbed off the seeds. And that was released into
the air during planting. And the bees
died instantly? Those that passed through
the dust cloud — yes. But the worst bit was that the
dust settled on flowering plants — so the remaining bees then
gathered contaminated pollen. Rather than being sprayed onto
crops like traditional pesticides, neonics are often applied in
the form of a seed dressing. The seed coated with
insecticide is then drilled into the ground using
a seed planter. The toxins are effective from the
root to the entire plant as it grows, making it immune to pests both
in the ground and the field. The state of Baden-WĂĽrttemberg
investigated what had gone wrong
in Breisgau. To the beekeepers’
amazement, blame was placed on the
mechanical seed planters. The agriculture ministry
echoed Bayer’s official line, saying that had the seeds
been sown correctly, everything would
have been fine. Neonics were nevertheless banned
for use on corn in Germany, though still permitted
for other crops. Bayer offered 2.2 Million
euros in fast-track aid. But only on one condition
for the beekeeper — “In return I shall cede all existing
and future claims to compensation to the state of
Baden-Württemberg.” The
investigator — the government of
Baden-Württemberg — had suddenly become
the mediator. The offer from Bayer was actually
made via the agriculture department. Bayer and the state of
Baden-WĂĽrttemberg wanted to buy their way
out of this. It was touted as emergency
aid for the beekeepers, but they were just
covering themselves. There was a real push to
settle the matter quickly. They knew the bees
had been poisoned — otherwise it would have taken a
lot longer to get the money. Many of the beekeepers accepted the
compensation and Bayer was left alone. The ban on neonicotinoids
in corn wasn’t a problem, as they were still approved
for many other crops. Between 1992 and 2017, around 3
thousand 700 tonnes of the agent were sold in
Germany alone. Bayer and other manufacturers like Syngenta
supplied various neonicotinoids to more than a hundred countries,
earning billions of euros. Scientists accuse
the producers of making money at the expense
of the environment. Because studies show that neonicotinoids
actually impact entire ecosystems. Dutch toxicologist Henk
Tennekes has spent years studying the substances sold
by companies like Bayer. He believes neonicotinoids are the
most toxic insecticides ever produced. We met Tennekes at a
clinic in the Netherlands. Even though he was undergoing
treatment for pneumonia when we saw him
late last year, he agreed to
speak to us. Neonicotinoids are water-soluble and
relatively mobile in the ground. So when it rains they are easily washed
into the groundwater and runoff water. This means they affect the
whole environment and are also absorbed by wild flowers
and plants via their roots. The entire landscape
becomes toxic for insects. So it’s fair to assume that this
will result in mass insect deaths. And if the insects disappear,
the ecosystem collapses. That’s why this is an
ecological Armageddon. We are destroying the
whole of nature. Henk Tennekes believes that
neonics are the main cause of insect deaths
around the world, and that via the food chain
they’re also responsible for the decline in the
populations of birds, reptiles and
amphibians. And there’s evidence that
they’re harmful to humans too. So why are these insecticides
still being sold? In 2018, the European Union did at least
ban three of the five neonicotinoids — because of the
threat to bees. But France had already banned
one product containing the toxins
back in 1999. It took nineteen years
for the EU to catch up. So why did the French authorities
act so much earlier? In Paris, we meet scientist
Jean-Marc Bonmatin and beekeeper
Henri Clement. They helped instigate
the 1999 ban. At the time, beekeepers were
experiencing mysterious die-offs. Bonmatin proved that the neonicotinoids
produced by Bayer were to blame. When the results were made public
and the beekeepers protested, the company was
swift to respond. Very quickly Bayer started to exert
pressure to get us to keep quiet. They didn’t want us
beekeepers causing problems. Bayer sued me
for libel. I don’t produce honey from
sunflowers or canola, I was acting in my capacity as head
of the National Union of Beekeepers. But they sued me as a
private individual. Our lawyer defended
us and we won. And Bayer chose not
to appeal the ruling. But I wasn’t
the only one. The scientists also
came under pressure. The aim was to
stop the debate, so they could carry
on making money. But the French government
was also alarmed by the mass bee deaths and
had commissioned a study. Before we even started
our research, Bayer began using the
agriculture ministry to try to impose its methods and
threshold values on us So that wasn’t
a good start. Then when we got
our results, they came into the lab to check
my analysis and find any errors. They were desperate
to find a mistake! But I hadn’t
made any. And because we had proven
that the toxins penetrate even the blossoms
of the plant, they were forced to
accept our results. Later I mentioned the pressure exerted
by Bayer to the French media. I then received two letters
from a Bayer lawyer, one addressed to me personally and
one to the head of my institute. They wanted to use their influence
to force me to keep my mouth shut. They expected me,
a scientist, to hide my results in order
to protect Bayer’s sales. But that wasn’t his
first brush with Bayer. Jean-Marc Bonmatin
works for one of the top research
institutions in France. It was back in the mid 1990s
that he was commissioned by the French agriculture ministry to
investigate the mass bee deaths. Suspicion had fallen
on a neonicotinoid first made by Bayer
called imidacloprid. Bomantin says that at the request of
the regional agriculture authorities, Bayer employees were actively
involved in the first study. I believe it’s normal for a company
like Bayer to be informed if one of its products is
being investigated. But what absolutely isn’t normal is
when representatives of that company whose product is being assessed are
involved in determining details of the approach
to be taken — including the financing and even the
publication of the final results. There was certainly a lot of
money at stake for Bayer. The investigators were sent on
the one hand to fields of sunflowers treated with neonicotinoids, on
the other to untreated fields — for control
purposes. At least that’s what Jean-Marc
Bonmatin and his colleagues were told. They were only supposed to analyze the
fields containing the Bayer pesticides. But later they realized that
the control fields were also contaminated
with insecticide. We scientists complained
when we realized that the control fields had been treated
with fungicides and other insecticides. It’s just not normal for an
experiment at this level. But the management committee for
the study ignored our complaints. Instead, the results of
this comparative study, which we now know
were worthless, were taken as proof that
imidacloprid is harmless for bees. Suddenly, Bayer’s insecticides
appeared beyond suspicion. Any possibility of a ban
had been dismissed — for now
at least. But Bonmatin and his colleagues
at the institute then carried out their
own study, on behalf of the
beekeepers. This time Bayer was not involved,
and the results were staggering. We were able to prove that
everything relevant to the bees — whether it was the corn, the
sunflowers, pollen, nectar, water — everything was
contaminated. And the levels of toxins in the
open countryside were so high that they were sufficient
to either kill the bees or at least cause grave
long-term problems. In 1999, France then banned
the use of neonicotinoids, but initially only
for sunflowers. That wasn’t enough
for the beekeepers. They wanted a blanket ban
on all neonicotinoids. So they hired the services of
a Paris lawyer, Bernard Fau. He took up the case against
Bayer and other manufacturers. Eventually it went to
the Conseil dÉtat, France’s highest court for
administrative cases. Fau realized the companies
had exploited weaknesses in the licensing systems to get
their products on the market. European directives refer to what’s
known as the “hazard quotient”. If this quotient is exceeded,
the manufacturer is obliged to carry out a field experiment
under realistic conditions to prove that the product
is not harmful. We discovered that this
control experiment, which was obligatory in order to
gain approval, never took place. If the tests had been carried out
as European regulations dictate, these products would never
have been authorized. It’s in part thanks to Bernard Fau’s
persistence that France became the first country in the world to
ban the use of all neonicotinoids — in 2018. In Germany meanwhile, Bayer continued
to earn well from the insecticides. Neonics were used on many different
crops, as a panacea for all pests. The discoveries in France didn’t appear
to bother the German authorities. Even though beekeepers here
complained of heavy losses. Walter Haefeker was,
until recently, president of the European
Beekeepers Association. He told us of his organization’s
relief when Germany finally announced a study on the declining
bee population. But the relief
didn’t last long. We realized that the initiative only
began once the threat was perceived of Germany having to adopt the
same stance as France. There was clearly
great concern that the insecticides could
be banned here too. Was the industry looking
to pre-empt that move? It would appear that was the reason
why Bayer and another neonics maker, Syngenta, took
part in the study. Walter Haefeker soon realized
something was very wrong. Every year there was an annual report
and every year the findings would go through
the media. The varroa
mite — which causes
honeybee deaths — is really terrible, but we’ve found
no problems with pesticides. It was like a public
relations coup for them. Obviously we became
increasingly critical of how the whole project
was structured. With the methods
they were using, they wouldn’t have
found any link between pesticides and honeybee
deaths anyway. “Neonics have nothing to do
with the mass bee deaths”, that was the apparent finding
that defined public opinion right up until the disaster
in Breisgau in 2008. The industry had put half a million
euros into the bee monitoring project. When you look at how the
project was financed, it’s pretty obvious that the one
who pays the piper calls the tune! The German bee monitoring project
was financed almost entirely by the insecticide
makers. The beekeepers association walked
out of the project in protest. But by this point, questions
were also being raised about whether neonicotinoids
harm not just bees, but other
wildlife too. We’ve come to Munich’s
botanical gardens, where we meet Spanish toxicologist
Francisco Sanchez-Bayo. He conducted a major study on neonics
that has attracted global interest. So, when you published your study
in the beginning of this year. What was the
conclusion? We found in the countries
where this has been studied, which are mostly
European, American, but also countries around the
world like Brazil or Japan, that 40 percent of the species
of insects are declining. And among those one third of them
are really declining rapidly and they are threatened
with extinction He too says neonicotinoids
play a key role in that trend. And they don’t just kill insects,
they damage entire ecosystems. Sanchez-Bayo proved
that in Japan — where he studied irrigated rice
fields over a 2-year period. These ecosystems are home to minute
water fleas known as Daphnia as well as crayfish and Japanese
rice fish, called medaka. One day the rice farmers noticed that
much of this wildlife was dying, apart from the
water fleas. The crayfish were
especially hard hit. A laboratory at Chiba University
was asked to investigate. The researchers soon found the
culprit, the same neonicotinoid that had killed the
bees in France. We nevertheless observed
a very curious thing. The medaka that were
in the mesocosms treated with
imidacloprid were all, absolutely all 100
percent of the fish, were contaminated with
protozoan parasites. And of course we put it down
to the fact that imidacloprid, like all neonicotinoids,
inhibits the immune system. So all the species were sensitive
to the insecticide except Daphnia. So that was the
unusual thing. So Daphnia was an anomaly and
the unfortunate fact is, that this anomaly had been
used as the reason to say, that this insecticide was
safe for the environment. But it was a
complete anomaly. The poison did not kill
the tiny water fleas, but it did effectively
exterminate much larger species. It weakened their immune
system so severely that they were easy
prey for parasites. The results were
indisputable — or so Sanchez-Bayo
thought. But he hadn’t reckoned with a former
Bayer scientist who had actually helped to develop
neonics. The day I explained the results of
the first year mesocosm studies to the whole group and to
the faculty at the end he just couldn't understand
the results himself. And he asked me, so what are you
going to do with these results. And I said,
well, the first thing I’m going
to do is to publish them because it’s something
that’s a novelty. And he really didn't
know what to say. He was speechless and said, do
you really want to publish it? I said yes, I think it’s important to
let the world know what’s happening. But they wanted to
keep it secret. They didn't want to publicize something
which will be damaging for the company. The toxicologist says the laboratory
then terminated his contract. But he published the
results anyway. The events he witnessed indicate that
at least one Bayer scientist knew right back in 2004 about the kind
of devastation that neonicotinoids can cause in
ecosystems. From our research it’s clear
that Bayer tried for decades to prevent any kind of universal
ban on neonicotinoids. In France, the
company sought to intimidate beekeepers
and scientists, and played a leading role
in a questionable study on bee mortality that
exonerated the insecticides. In Germany, insecticide makers
funded a bee monitoring project. It led to the widespread
belief that neonicotinoids had nothing to do with
mass bee deaths. And in Japan, it would
appear Bayer employees even sought to suppress the
publication of a crucial study; scientists had proven
that neonicotinoids were responsible for the collapse
of entire ecosystems. So what does Bayer say to all these
allegations and research results? We spent weeks trying to
communicate with the company — and were then denied
entry to its premises. Bayer representatives refused
to talk to us on camera. Our written questions
went unanswered. Instead the company criticized
what it described as unfair treatment by the media and
merely sent us this general statement: “Bayer remains convinced that
the use of neonicotinoids is safe for humans and the environment
provided they are used responsibly and in accordance
with the instructions for use.” Neonicotinoids only
kill pests, we’re told. Bayer studies claim that not even
long-term use is harmful to bees, other insects
or fish. As for the allegation that
Bayer employees sought to manipulate other
studies — no
comment. We return to Dutch
toxicologist Henk Tennekes. He’s spent years studying
these pesticides. During that time he discovered two
studies carried out by Bayer, the findings of which
are astounding. In one, a Bayer scientist
describes the effects of the first neonicotinoid on the
nervous system of a species of fly. These effects are described
as “irreversible”. Imidacloprid is the first highly
effective insecticide that works on the principle of almost
completely blocking receptors, in a way that is
virtually irreversible." One of the Bayer studies
was completed in 1991 — so one year before the product
was granted EU-wide approval. When Tennekes confronted
Bayer with these studies, he was taken aback
by the response. Bayer now claims that the
blocking of receptors in the nervous system
is reversible. So they’re contradicting
themselves. If the effect is reversible, it
depends on the concentration and so you can define
a threshold level. If the blocking
is irreversible, you can’t define a threshold level
and so the effect is cumulative. The original Bayer
study is key, because if the toxins remain
in the nervous system, that can lead
to death — even if the insects were only
exposed to a small dose. So if Bayer knew that, why did
the company take no action? Imidacloprid alone generates annual
turnover of nearly a billion euros. So I think that led them
to just claim something so they could keep
selling this pesticide. If they had considered the
impact this substance has, they would have had to
take it off the market. We also asked the Bayer
Group about these studies, carried out by its
own scientists. And once again, the company
declined to comment. There’s enough evidence to
prove the dangers of neonics. But authorities have either
been slow to respond or taken no
action at all. If we take the European
Union, for example, a look at how pesticides are
authorized is highly revealing. First, the active ingredient
is approved for EU-wide usage. The manufacturer can apply
in any member state. France was chosen for the
first neonicotinoid. But only the manufacturers
test the substance for toxicity and
environmental impact. The authorities just
do the paperwork. In Germany,
that’s the Federal Office of Consumer
Protection and Food Safety. Along with three
other agencies. None of them test
the products. So everything depends on studies
carried out by the manufacturer. As the European Beekeepers
Association points out, it’s a system that’s all
too easy to manipulate. The manufacturers can
intervene at all levels, they even get a say in how any
prescribed tests are structured. Up until now it’s also been
the case that these studies that the manufacturer
commissioned or undertook, remained a
corporate secret. They couldn’t
be published. So no one else could
tell what the licensing authorities
actually checked. That makes life easy
for the authorities because no one can really
question their decisions. It’s been a very convenient
relationship between industry and
regulatory authority. To this day, it remains a
distinctly sickly system. What if independent laboratories were
to carry out tests prior to approval — instead of these powerful
chemicals companies? We’d like to discuss this with the German
agriculture minister Julia Klöckner. For weeks we tried
to get an interview. When we finally got
an appointment, we were told we couldn’t
use our camera, and that the minister
had no time for us. Instead we received a statement
saying the ministry was committed to continuing to develop the
approval and licensing procedures on the basis of the latest developments
in science and technology. And yet an EU directive
aimed at tightening the approval regulations for pesticides
has been stalled for years, with Germany among those
standing in the way. Critics like French lawyer Bernard
Fau say it’s the result of successful lobbying by
manufacturers like Bayer. We mustn’t
be naive. The goal and purpose of these companies
is to make money with these products. And that’s what they do, with
all means at their disposal. That’s normal. What isn’t
normal is breaking the law, concealing facts and playing
for time in order to prevent products that are harmful
from being taken off the market. Even though the
evidence is clear, neonicotinoids are still one of the most
widely used insecticides in the world. Bayer on the
one hand has influenced scientific studies and
intimidated and sued its critics. While on the other, lax licensing
rules and authorities who have ignored deeply troubling studies
have prevented meaningful controls. And meaningful change will
mean companies being monitored more closely and
warnings heeded earlier.
I'll be the first one to say it. Fuck Monsanto, fuck Bayer and fuck glyphosate/RoundUp.
Monsanto are pure evil. If Bayer bought them out, just imagine how bad they are.
Bayer killing jews in WW2 with Zyklon B and now kiling bees Neo-nicotinoids... And they've also teamed up with Monsanto, famous for Agent Orange that killed and crippled a lot of Vietnamese citizens. Why do we let this exist...
Another company to add to my boycott list!
There is an excellent podcast discussing the health effects of glyphosate in America at https://podcast.vhostevents.com/episodes/embracing-the-connection-between-agriculture-and-health-with-zach-bush/
The interviewee, Dr. Zach Bush, is writing a book based on research on glyphosate. It is well worth a listen to get a better idea of the scope of the damage glyphosate causes in humans.