Here, I relate what the journalist said in his article « Haro scientifique mondial sur les néonicotinoïdes ». All quotes, originally in French, were translated by me.
A text published on June 1 by the journal Science and endorsed by 233 scientists, including Dave Goulson, argues that the use of NNIs must be drastically and urgently restricted. Indeed, the available facts strongly suggest that these products contribute to the current massive loss of biodiversity. An expert report commissioned in 2001 by the French Minister of Agriculture, Jean Glavany, already suggested the involvement of the most commonly used NNI in “bee disorders denounced by beekeepers since the mid-1990s”.
France was, to date, the only country to have registered in the law (the biodiversity law of 2016) the exit of NNI. ANSES was then contacted to examine the possible alternatives to their use. It also submitted its report on June 1. The health agency has identified 130 agricultural uses for these molecules and found in 78% of cases at least one non-chemical alternative solution and in 89% of cases alternative pesticides. J-M. Bonmatin welcomes the ANSES report, but regrets that the hypothesis of a common insurance fund, which has been successfully implemented in north-eastern Italy, has not been considered.
The SNPN calls on the French government to be vigilant, this law being able to be “emptied of its meaning and its effectiveness compromised by complacent derogations“. S. Foucart concludes:
“For the SNPN, the urgency is in one number:“ Recent research in Germany, adds the learned society, has shown a collapse of the total biomass of flying insects, of nearly 80% in three decades. “”