Governments across the world always come under political pressure to impose regulations on business to combat new health hazards, whether those dangers happen to be real or imaginary. Lawmakers rarely manage to reconcile completely the interests of groups that are lobbying for and against any proposed new rule.
Yet as 2014 begins, senior government officials in many states might consider a new year’s resolution to assess the evidence of health risks in a more coldly scientific manner than they currently do. Too often, emotions and entrenched political views trump scientific objectivity when it comes to the setting of rules.
Take the vexed issue of the neonicotinoid pesticides blamed for the worldwide decline in bee populations. A partial ban of these pesticides recently took effect in Europe, and environmental campaigners are pushing for similar action in the US. Yet the scientific case against “neonics” is far from convincing. Yes, they kill bees under some conditions but there is no convincing evidence that they are the main cause of the decline. Many factors are putting bees under pressure, including disease and the declining floral diversity of the countryside as a result of modern agriculture. The possible downsides of losing neonics include lower crop yields and increased use of older pesticides that might be more harmful to bees in the long term.