{"id":39480,"date":"2025-09-04T00:01:31","date_gmt":"2025-09-04T04:01:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=39480"},"modified":"2025-08-28T16:44:34","modified_gmt":"2025-08-28T20:44:34","slug":"study-cites-ban-of-bee-killing-pesticides-in-eu-inaction-in-u-s-and-canada-and-need-for-organic-transition","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2025\/09\/study-cites-ban-of-bee-killing-pesticides-in-eu-inaction-in-u-s-and-canada-and-need-for-organic-transition\/","title":{"rendered":"Study Cites Ban of Bee-Killing Pesticides in EU, Inaction in U.S. and Canada"},"content":{"rendered":"

(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, September 4, 2025) A review of agricultural neonicotinoid<\/a> insecticide regulations, published in Pest Management Science<\/em><\/a>, evaluates the varied approaches being taken for bans and exemption-based restrictions in the European Union (EU), Canada, and the United States (U.S.). Despite an ever-growing and overwhelming body of science<\/a> linking neonicotinoids (neonics) to adverse effects on pollinators and other nontarget species, the regulations fall short in protecting the environment and wildlife. The review, with the history and current status of neonics, lends further support for a full transition to organic agriculture and land management that removes neonicotinoid exposure routes and subsequent health threats.<\/p>\n

With the application of this widely used class of neurotoxic system insecticides increasing, so too has the concern over the long-term chronic effects<\/a> on pollinators and other species from exposure. This concern, backed by scientific literature, has \u201cled to increased governmental regulations since the mid-2010s, particularly in agricultural settings,\u201d state the authors from Iowa State University and Washington State University. They continue, \u201cThese regulations have varied in terms of approach, geography, and timeline, starting with a ban implemented by the European Union (EU) and evolving into exemption-based regulations across two Canadian provinces and five U.S. states as of this writing.\u201d<\/p>\n

While designed to control piercing and sucking pests like aphids and whiteflies, neonicotinoid impacts on nontarget species range from sublethal effects on pollinators to aquatic insects and crustaceans as well as birds and mammals, including humans. Scientific literature also shows \u201cevidence<\/a> that different common neonicotinoid derivative groups pose differing levels of threats, with nitroguanidine neonicotinoids (including clothianidin<\/a>, dinotefuran<\/a>, imidacloprid<\/a>, and thiamethoxam<\/a>, often applied as seed treatments) presenting greater risks to pollinators than the cyanoamidine group (including acetamiprid<\/a> and thiacloprid<\/a>, mainly used as foliar applications),\u201d the authors note. The cyanoamidine group, however, are less studied than the nitroguanidine neonicotinoids but have been found to be highly toxic to aquatic insects.<\/p>\n

EU Regulatory Cases<\/strong><\/p>\n

Use of imidacloprid in some EU countries was authorized as early 1991, while others, such as thiamethoxam, were introduced throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s. Research began in 2009 and was published four years later documenting impacts on bee health with neonic exposure, leading to EU Regulation 485\/2013, which \u201cplaced a moratorium on the use of three specific neonicotinoids (imidacloprid and clothianidin, manufactured by Bayer, and thiamethoxam, manufactured by Syngenta) in bee-attractive open-crop fields,\u201d the authors write.<\/p>\n

They continue: \u201cSpecifically, the use of nitroguanidine neonicotinoids was prohibited in corn\/maize, canola, and sunflower crops. Controversy arose, particularly because the decision was contested by agrichemical industries.\u201d This backlash led to subsequent field studies in which the agrichemical industries \u201ccontend[ed] that the results demonstrated the in-field safety of neonicotinoids.\u201d<\/p>\n

Non-industry scientists and citizens fought back against these claims, leading to a reassessment of evidence on neonicotinoids and bee health that prompted EU Member States to approve a full ban of imidacloprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam in outdoor applications. Ban exemptions create loopholes. Between 2019 and 2023, 236 emergency pesticide exemptions were granted, 47.5% of which related to neonicotinoids.<\/p>\n

\u201cFollowing appeals from farmers, beekeepers, and environmental organizations, the decision for pesticide exemptions was reversed in 2023, and it was also determined that individual European countries could not legally grant exceptions for the use of pesticides that the EU has banned, aligning with recommendations by Epstein et al<\/em>.<\/a> to stringently limit emergency exemptions,\u201d the authors explain.<\/p>\n

Limiting exemptions was in part due to the detection of neonics in aquatic wildlife above environmental quality standards that were deemed safe, as well as the persistence of this class of chemicals in soil and water. As the study notes, \u201cAdditionally, research has found high levels of soil and canola nectar contamination, particularly with imidacloprid, even after the 2013 and 2018 bans took place, suggesting that partial bans (i.e. those not extending to non-pollinated crops and indoor use, or granting too many emergency exemptions) may be insufficient to adequately control risks.\u201d<\/p>\n

As it currently stands, two neonicotinoids in use are up for renewal evaluation in 2025. It has also been announced that the EU intends to ban the import of products containing any traces of thiamethoxam and clothianidin by 2026.<\/p>\n

Regulatory Action in Canada<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the 1990s, neonicotinoids were first used in Canada for the Colorado potato beetle and flea beetle in potatoes and canola. Immediate research began to show negative impacts to bees and pollinators, with agrichemical companies arguing<\/a> the science was too uncertain to be conclusive. \u201cNonetheless, the province of Ontario followed the example of the EU in that Ontario attempted to impose a blanket ban on nitroguanidine neonicotinoids, but some restrictions were later rescinded,\u201d the authors recount.<\/p>\n

They continue, \u201cUltimately, Ontario instituted a partial ban based on the precautionary principle<\/a>, i.e., that a given course of action or technology must be proven safe before it can be used, to reduce agricultural use of neonicotinoids by 80%.\u201d This ban, thanks to involvement from the Ontario Bee Working Group, went into effect on July 1, 2015. Despite pushback from the Grain Farmers of Ontario, the ban stayed in place.<\/p>\n

It was decided that farmers wishing to buy and use neonicotinoid-treated seeds<\/a> must complete a one-time free Integrated Pest Management (IPM) training, complete a pest risk assessment report, and sign an IPM Written Declaration Form stating that they have considered IPM principles to decrease the risk of early season insect damage.<\/p>\n

\u201cAfter reviewing the science, including studies specific to Canada, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), in 2018, proposed a phaseout of all agricultural, ornamental, and greenhouse use of neonicotinoids over the next 3\u20135 years, the authors state. \u201cHowever, this proposal was heavily altered by the PMRA in 2021. The PMRA concluded that the neonicotinoids in question were largely acceptable, and only minor mitigations were required, such as restricting their application to seed treatments.\u201d As shared in reporting by Canada’s National Observer, it is alleged that the reversal is a result of \u201cagrichemical company interference and collusion.\u201d Revaluation of neonicotinoid restrictions is ongoing, with a plan to publish any decisions in the 2025\u20132026 fiscal year.<\/p>\n

Qu\u00e9bec independently regulates nitroguanidine neonicotinoid use, prohibiting since 2019 the use of neonicotinoid-treated seeds for corn and soybean unless growers have a verification of need from an independent agronomist. This ban, as shown in a report by the Qu\u00e9bec government, led to a drop in detected neonicotinoids in surface waters from 2018 to 2020. However, most farmers turned primarily to diamides (about 60% of corn fields in 2021) as a replacement, perpetuating the pesticide treadmill. Completely untreated seed were only reported in about 20\u201330% of fields in 2023. Qu\u00e9bec\u2019s current plan is to \u201csubject all insecticide seed coatings\u2014not just neonicotinoids\u2014in corn, soybean, canola, wheat, and barley to regulations, including agronomic justification and prescription by a trained agronomist, to go into effect in 2025.\u201d<\/p>\n

U.S. Regulations<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the U.S., as pointed out in many previous Daily News<\/em> articles<\/a> by Beyond Pesticides, regulatory actions through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fail to properly address the associated risks from petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. Presently, a registration review and amended proposed interim decision through EPA is scheduled<\/a> on the use of imidacloprid, clothianidin, thiamethoxam, dinotefuran, and acetamiprid is expected in 2025.<\/p>\n

As the current review notes, the U.S. has been slower to implement restrictions on neonicotinoids than the EU or Canada but specific states have taken additional action. As of 2023<\/a>, at least 20 states had developed plans or passed legislation to protect pollinator habitats. In the review, efforts from California, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Illinois showcase state-based actions particularly for agricultural uses, while additional states including Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, and Washington have enacted actions pertaining to nonagricultural uses.<\/p>\n

California<\/u><\/p>\n

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), in 2008, began receiving adverse effects disclosures of neonicotinoids on pollinators. Four nitroguanidine neonicotinoids were reevaluated in 2009 but proposed regulations did not go into effect until January 1, 2024<\/a>, which limited soil and foliar\u2014but not seed-treated\u2014nitroguanidine neonicotinoids in the production of agricultural commodities in 16 fruit, vegetable, and cereal crops.<\/p>\n

Minnesota<\/u><\/p>\n

In 2023, four bills concerning neonicotinoids were signed into law, one of which is directly related to agriculture and involves the use and disposal of pesticide-treated seeds<\/a>. \u201cAs of October 2024, the NRDC<\/a> [Natural Resources Defense Council] led the filing of a legal petition against the MDA, arguing that the MDA has failed to protect Minnesotan citizens’ rights by failing to enact farther-reaching neonicotinoid-treated seed restrictions,\u201d the authors share. \u201cHowever, the NRDC’s petition was rejected<\/a> in December 2024.\u201d<\/p>\n

New York<\/u><\/p>\n

The Birds and the Bees Protection Act<\/em><\/a> was signed by the Governor of New York in 2022, which prohibits the use of both nitroguanidine and cyanoamidine neonicotinoids in corn, soybeans, and wheat production. This was anticipated to decrease the use of neonicotinoids in the state by 80\u201390%. Provisions in this bill, however, do not take effect until 2029.<\/p>\n

As covered in Daily News<\/em> titled Bill to Protect Birds and Bees in New York Raises Political Challenges to Addressing Ecosystem Collapse<\/a>, legislative efforts to curtail some life-threatening pesticides associated with birds and bees (and other pollinators) decline were weakened in New York State at the end of December 2023 as the governor negotiated and stripped elements of a bill relating to agriculture that had passed the legislature\u2014again illustrating the grip of the agrichemical industry on public policy intended to begin to address the crisis in ecosystem collapse. (See \u201cStudy Cites Insect Extinction and Ecological Collapse<\/a>.\u201d) In passing the Birds and Bees Protection Act<\/em>, New York joined New Jersey, Nevada, and Maine in banning most nonagricultural uses of neonicotinoid insecticides, but, in last-minute changes to avoid the governor\u2019s veto, failed to phase out corn, soybean, and wheat seeds coated with these chemicals.<\/p>\n

Rhode Island<\/u><\/p>\n

Legislation in 2022, and effective as of January 1, 2024, was signed by the Governor of Rhode Island to restrict the use of both nitroguanidine and cyanoamidine neonicotinoids outdoors but contains a provision allowing certified applicators to purchase and use neonicotinoids as long as the plant is not blossoming. “While the National Pest Management Association opposed the bill and appeared to influence a vote delay in the House and Senate, activist groups pushed the legislature to approve it,\u201d the authors note.<\/p>\n

Vermont<\/u><\/p>\n

The Governor of Vermont vetoed a bill that limits nitroguanidine and cyanoamidine neonicotinoids in the state, but the legislature overrode it and the bill was enacted. This requires farmers to get a prescription from their agronomist demonstrating that neonicotinoid-coated seeds are necessary. \u201cThe bill explicitly prohibits the use of neonicotinoid-treated seeds in soybeans and cereal grains, outdoor application during bloom, and outdoor application to leafy and petiole vegetable crops harvested after bloom,\u201d the authors explain. These provisions will go into effect in 2029, on the condition that the legislation in New York successfully goes into effect as well.<\/p>\n

Illinois<\/u><\/p>\n

In 2024, the Illinois General Assembly passed legislation restricting corn, soybean, and wheat seed treatments with neonicotinoids in both the nitroguanidine and cyanomidine groups (clothianidin, imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, dinotefuran, and acetamiprid). These restrictions are also modeled after those outlined by the state of New York.<\/p>\n

Overview of Regulations to Date<\/strong><\/p>\n

Despite the growing body of research connecting neonicotinoid exposure to detrimental environmental and health effects, \u201cregulations have spread from the EU to Canadian provinces and, subsequently, to specific US states, becoming increasingly voluntary and less restrictive over time.,\u201d the authors highlight. The industry pressure from agrichemical companies has reduced the effectiveness of regulatory action, with the adoption of voluntary efforts and a myriad of exceptions and exemptions. (See Daily News<\/em> articles on industry influence here<\/a> and here<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Additionally, the replacement of neonics with other toxic chemicals such as pyrethroids or diamides, sometimes at higher usage levels than neonicotinoids, perpetuates the risks to pollinators and other wildlife. \u201cWhat can we infer from these trends?,\u201d the authors ask. They continue: \u201cFor one, the nature of regulation will largely depend on each government’s adherence to the precautionary principle. The EU has taken a highly precautionary approach by instituting a complete ban, while Canadian and US federal agencies have been slow or reluctant to act, leaving regulation mostly to lower-level regional governments.\u201d These regulations have been criticized as insufficient in protecting the environment and all organisms within it, which provides further support for the urgent need to transition all agriculture and land management to organic.<\/p>\n

Previous Coverage<\/strong><\/p>\n

As shared in a 2019 Daily News article, Settlement Bans Some Bee-Toxic Pesticides, Requires Public Comment Period on Testing All Pesticide Product Ingredients and Regulating Pesticide-Treated Seeds<\/a>, plaintiffs in a 2013 lawsuit against EPA made a number of claims related to EPA\u2019s failure to protect pollinators from dangerous pesticides, its poor oversight of the bee-killing pesticides clothianidin and thiamethoxam, and its practice of \u201cconditional registration,\u201d as well as labeling deficiencies. The parties in the suit negotiated a settlement, as directed by a federal judge, that was signed in October 2018 and portends some positive movement in curtailing the use of some toxic pesticides [12 products, each of which contains clothianidin or thiamethoxam as an active ingredient] that harm pollinators in particular, as well as other organisms and the environment. Learn more with related coverage from 2023, Groups Challenge EPA on Allowing Toxic Pesticides that Do Not Even Work and Without Its Review<\/a>.<\/p>\n

State-based coverage includes: Nevada Assembly Votes Unanimously To Protect Pollinators, Recognizes Deficiencies of EPA Regulations<\/a>, Colorado Limits Bee-Toxic Pesticide Use, as EPA Details Harm to Endangered Species<\/a>, States Step In to Restrict Bee-Toxic Pesticides, California the Latest in Absence of EPA Action<\/a>, and Vermont Leverages New York Limits on Neonic Insecticides with Deference to Chemical-Intensive Agriculture<\/a>.<\/p>\n

What Can You Do?<\/strong><\/p>\n