This is part of the book “Stéphane Foucart et les néonicotinoïdes. The World and disinformation 1“ where I show the journalist misinforms (= false or misleading statements) the reader. One of the myths he develops is that the regulatory response against NNIs has been delayed by industry influence. All quotes are translated (by me), except the ones marked between [ ] in the french version (french quotes are to numerous to be marked in this one).
For the author, the ban on NNIs would have been obvious very early on. So he wrote in 2013, commenting on the moratorium:
“The first is that of wasted time. A decade ago, an expert report commissioned by Jean Glavany, then Minister of Agriculture, concluded that imidacloprid posed an unacceptable risk to bees. It also showed that the standard risk assessment tests were unsuitable for the methods of application of the new molecules (seed coating, etc.). By taking this 2003 report seriously, we could have avoided much of what has happened since.” (13)
Likewise, regarding the opinion of EFSA, the same year:
“Yet such an opinion could have been formulated by EFSA on the basis of scientific knowledge available ten years ago.” (9)
In several other articles, he also claims that this report exposed flaws in risk assessment procedures, which would be a “trick” that an elementary school child could figure out in a matter of minutes. (39) In reality, things are far from that simple. Let’s go back to his presentation of the severity of the damage, the dangerousness of NNIs and the assessment procedures.