Quantcast
Popular

New Evidence Shows Bayer, Syngenta Tried to Influence Scientists on Bee Study

By Joe Sandler Clarke

Bayer and Syngenta repeatedly asked scientists to give them raw data on a major new study which found that neonicotinoid pesticides cause harm to bees before it was published, according to emails obtained under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Both companies cited their position as co-funders to try to get information from researchers at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH), including on experiments paid for by the government backed National Environment Research Council.


The pesticide giants also encouraged the academics to study their own research on bees, which showed no harm from their products, only to be rebuffed by the researchers.

Published last week in the prestigious journal Science, the CEH study made headlines for showing for the first time that neonicotinoids can cause harm to honey bees in real world conditions. It also showed that the nicotine-based chemicals can harm the reproductivity of wild bees.

Since publication, both companies have attacked the study and criticised CEH for the way it presented the findings.

The body is one of the leading centers for the scientific study of pesticides. But speaking to Energydesk, Bayer refused to say if it would continue to back research by CEH.

"There are a lot of questions coming out of this data and it will be a while before we have definitive answers about what we want to do next," said Dr. Julian Little, Bayer's head of government relations in the UK.

"It's a bit early to say of course we're going to be working with them, or we're definitely not going to be working with them. It will depend entirely on the situation going forward."

Landmark findings

The chemical companies spent around $3 million on research by CEH looking at the impact of neonics on honey bees and wild bees.

However, the emails reveal that disagreement between the companies and the researchers arose when Bayer and Syngenta made repeated efforts to get access to the raw data from experiments on wild bees, which was funded by National Environment Research Council.

On Jan. 11, a Bayer staff member wrote to professor Rosemary Hails at CEH to say, "As co-owner we believe we are entitled to unlimited, unrestricted and prompt access to all such data and information, including, but not limited to, the data called raw data."

The Bayer representative went on to express their frustration at CEH's refusal to hand over the data, despite repeated requests.

CEH refused to hand over the raw data on the wild bees experiment to the companies until after the peer review process, but did present the data on honey bees.

Frustration

Since publication, both companies attacked the study and criticized CEH for the way it had chosen to present its findings.

Bayer's Julian Little told Energydesk, "We're quite frustrated about how these results have been portrayed. The reality seems to be a long way away from the headline."

Discussing the emails, Little said, "As we funded the vast majority of the study, unsurprisingly we were keen on getting the information as soon as possible. Especially when there had already been significant delays in us being given that information.

"I'm not sure how that becomes a conspiracy theory. We asked for the information, they said they weren't going to give it to us until they had all the information published. No doubt we said that doesn't seem very fair, but they said that's the way it was going to be so we said 'OK.'"

Syngenta were similarly blunt when approached by Energydesk about the emails.

A company spokesperson said, "CEH appear to have responded to funding, interaction, and requests for data by drawing an even stronger negative conclusion regarding the impact of neonicotinoids on bees."

Disagreement

From the outset of the research, Bayer, Syngenta and CEH disagreed over the size and scope of the study.

Emails from 2014 between the three parties, obtained by the environmental organization Buglife, showed Bayer and Syngenta discussing the test's design, monitoring and data analysis with scientists from CEH.

At the time, MPs on the Environmental Audit Committee expressed concern about the pressure being applied to CEH by the two companies.

But Bayer stressed the scientific independence of CEH and their own arm's length role in the study. During a select committee enquiry on the impacts of neonicotinoids, Julian Little told MPs:

"We are not doing the work. The work is being overseen by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. Yes, we are putting the money up for it, but it is being done by independent scientists."

"They are working with both Defra and [the European Food Safety Authority] to ensure that those protocols are relevant and, of course, all the information that comes from those studies will be with the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology and I am certain it will be published at some point in the future," he continued.

However, the emails obtained in 2014 show that the chemicals companies looked to focus the study solely on honey bees, leaving out other pollinators, ostensibly to reduce costs.

Internal documents from that same year, obtained using FOI, show that CEH felt that limiting the research to honey bees would reduce the scientific scope of the study.

Professor Richard Pywell from CEH, co-author of the study, wrote in an email dated March 21, 2014, "Syngenta and Bayer have suggested that the study should focus on just Honeybees to reduce overall costs … CEH believe that this reduces considerably the scientific scope of the study and while we appreciate the potential saving in overall costs, we are concerned about the impact on the merit of the experiment."

"Complete freedom"

Speaking just before the findings were made public, Pywell told Energydesk that his organization was determined to keep the research independent and appointed an independent scientific advisory panel, chaired by Bill Sutherland from Cambridge University, to that end.

"From the outset, we made it very clear that we would have complete freedom to design and report this study as we saw fit. We've made all of the protocols and the data, once it's been published, available to everyone.

"The funders had no input on the paper we submitted for peer review. We only shared a copy with funders at the proof stage when it could no longer be changed. That was the agreement.They had no input, no influence. We only shared it with them at the proof stage."

"Some of the arguments around access to data were because CEH had funded the wild pollinator work and in the end we reached an agreement."

Asked if CEH would work with Bayer and Syngenta again, Pywell said, "We would do it again. We would welcome the opportunity to do something like this. Someone has to do it. We're just doing independent research."

Show Comments ()

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

Sponsored
Animals

Close-up of beluga whale swimming in water. Graham Swain / EyeEm / Getty Images

Beluga Whale in River Thames 'Very Lost and Quite Possibly in Trouble'

Beluga whales are normally found in icy Arctic and subarctic waters. So onlookers were undoubtedly surprised to spot one of the distinctive white whales swimming very far south in the UK's River Thames.

Ecologist and ornithologist Dave Andrews first posted footage of the unusual sighting onto Twitter on Tuesday and said the whale was feeding around the barges near the town of Gravesend in northwest Kent.


Keep reading... Show less
Popular
Environmentalists paint "DIRTY" onto a silo at an Indonesia palm oil plant. Jurnasyanto Sukarno / Greenpeace

Rock Band Occupies Palm Oil Tanks With Activists Protesting Deforestation

Thirty activists, including members of Greenpeace and the Indonesian rock band Boomerang, occupied a palm oil refinery owned by Wilmar International, the world's largest palm oil trader, on Tuesday to protest deforestation in Indonesia.

The environmentalists abseiled down silos and unfurled a banner that read "Drop Dirty Palm Oil Now" and painted the word "DIRTY" onto another tank.

Keep reading... Show less
Health
Pixabay

Trump Administration Asks Court to Re-Hear Case That Banned Chlorpyrifos

The Trump administration is appealing a federal court ruling that ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban chlorpyrifos, a widely used pesticide tied to brain damage and other health problems in children.

In August, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the EPA must ban the pesticide within 60 days based on strong scientific evidence that chlorpyrifos—which is applied on dozens of fruit, nut and vegetable crops—is unsafe for public health.

Keep reading... Show less
Popular
Katharina Jaeger / LOOK / Getty Images

Locals Unite to Stop Hog Farms From Polluting Their Community

By Wyatt Massey

Sue George never intended to be an activist. The soft-spoken, retired elementary school teacher was content on her century farm near Lime Springs, a town in the rolling hills of northeast Iowa with a tad under 500 people.

Keep reading... Show less
Sponsored
Science
Young Florida panthers, one of the most endangered species in the U.S. according to the Center for Biological Diversity. USFWS

9,000+ Scientists Defend Endangered Species Act in Letter to Trump Administration

Thousands of scientists have signed two letters opposing changes to the Endangered Species Act proposed by the Trump administration that critics say would weaken protections in favor of developers, Reuters reported Monday.

The proposed changes were announced by the Interior and Commerce Departments in July, and include axing the "blanket rule' granting threatened species the same protections as endangered species and removing language telling officials not to consider economic impacts when listing a species.

Keep reading... Show less
Popular
Sandy Huffaker / Corbis / Getty Images

EPA Watchdog: 'Emergency' Pesticide Approval Process Is Flawed

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of the Inspector General released a report Tuesday finding that the agency's practice of routinely granting "emergency" approval for use of pesticides across millions of acres does not effectively measure risks to human health or the environment.

Keep reading... Show less
Sponsored
Oceans
Russian and U.S. students carry bug spray for the mosquitoes, bear spray for the grizzlies and notebooks for the salmon science, while studying in Alaska's backcountry. John Simeone on behalf of WWF

Sharing Knowledge and Salmon Across the Bering Sea

By Amy McDermott

At the height of the Alaskan summer, a troupe of students hiked up the middle of a shallow creek. Undergraduates and grads from the University of Washington, the University of Alaska Fairbanks and Kamchatka State Technical University in eastern Russia carried handheld clickers to count the multitudes of salmon thrashing upstream to spawn. Some of the students spoke English, others Russian, but they all came to see salmon: fish that their two countries share.

Keep reading... Show less
Food
The Orangutans in Indonesia have been known to be on the verge of extinction as a result of deforestation and poaching.
Ulet Ifansasti / Getty Images News

5 Ways to Make Food Production and Land Use More Earth-Friendly

By Edward Davey

The world is vastly underestimating the benefits of acting on climate change. Recent research from the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate finds that bold climate action could deliver at least $26 trillion in economic benefits through 2030. This ground-breaking research, produced by the Global Commission and more than 200 experts, highlights proof points of the global shift to a low-carbon economy, and identifies ways to accelerate action in five sectors: energy, cities, food and land use, water and industry. Our blog series, The $26 Trillion Opportunity, explores these economic opportunities in greater detail.

Keep reading... Show less
Sponsored

mail-copy

The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!