Circuit Court Voids Dow Insecticide Approval
 

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...910-story.html

Citing the alarming decline in honeybees, 9th Circuit of Appeals reverses EPA approval of Sulfoxaflor made by Dow 'Agrosciences'.

Very good!

So what was the court deciding here? That the EPA failed in it's statutory duty to make an official scientific judgement, based on the court's assessment of the danger to bees?

The court may be right, but something about this still bugs me....

Here's another article.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...-court-ruling/

OK, based on this report, two things happened. They found the unconditional registration of Sulfoxaflor was not proper, based on a finding that the EPA's finding was not based on substantial-enough evidence.

And they found vacating the registration was necessary because it is toxic to bees, and bee populations are 'precarious.'

So the court here based it's decisions on scientific judgements: a judgement that evidence justifying registering Sulfoxaflor was not substantial, and a judgement that the toxicity of Sulfoxaflor, as used, posed a dangerous risk to bees.

All this may be true, but I'm still uneasy, because as far as I know, the offerings of science courses at law schools are weak. Still, the court seems to be substituting it's scientific judgement for that of EPA guys who presumably do possess advanced scientific qualifications.

Now if the court had ruled that there was a preponderance of evidence, shown in court, Dow had unduly influenced the EPA in some way, I would not be a bit uneasy. My fear, though, is the court simply suspects this, and found a way to rule accordingly by making itself a higher 'scientific' authority.

Always the skeptic...I like that. ;)

The EU has banned nicotinoids, I'm good with it.