William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review
Abstract
The importance of bees in our ecosystem and to our food system in the United States cannot be overstated. In fact, 35% of global crop production depends on bees and other pollinating insects. Pollinators not only influence the production of many foods that we hold dear and rely on, such as apples, chocolate, potatoes, and coffee, but also influence the quality of these products.
Currently, the most insidious threat against bees in the United States is neonicotinoid pesticides (neonics). While neonics are effective at killing the target populations of beetles, aphids, and flies, they are equally effective at killing pollinators, particularly bees. The indiscriminate impact of neonics and the abandon with which farmers and home gardeners apply these pesticides to their crops and seeds poses a serious danger to pollinating bees.
Recently, left-leaning states have passed meaningful regulations to stop the pervasive and harmful use of neonics within their states and protect pollinating bees. However, right-leaning states have not made any affirmative steps to regulate neonics, even though the use of neonics will damage the food systems they rely on. The pollinator protection movement, or “Save the Bees,” is rooted in the left, and as the political divide in the United States widens, right-leaning states are unlikely to react positively to the traditional liberal environmental narratives when creating legislation. ‘Save the Bees’ must be reframed in conservative states in order to succeed in protecting pollinators from neonics.
In this Note, I will argue that, in conservative states, lobbying efforts for and the statutory construction of neonic regulation must be based on an economic argument in favor of pollinating bees. First, I will provide background on the economic importance of pollinating bees and the impact of neonics on them. Next, I will provide an overview of the federal regulation of pesticides and explain EPA’s reticence to regulate neonics. Then, I will present historical examples of successful economic arguments in conservative states. Finally, I will detail the specifics of the economic argument for banning neonics and discuss its implementation.
This abstract has been taken from the author's introduction.