This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters. Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|Dear Theresa May,
|I am writing again in response to the reply from your office (dated July 4th) to my message of July 2nd about neocotinids, bee deaths, and Syngenta.
|As you correctly point out the science is not clear but in cases such as this we should be guided by the precautionary principle:
|"The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle.
|The science is not clear but the potential risk to the environment is. The burden of proof falls on Syngenta and they have not made their case and, consequently, should not get a free pass.
|To your point "I understand that this application is currently under consideration so it would not be appropriate for Theresa to comment at this time." This does not makes sense. There is no point in commenting after a decision has been made.
|I had hoped that, as a responsible MP, you would be guided anyway by the precautionary principle but, in any case, as my constituency MP I am asking you to represent my views to the relevant department as part of their decision making process.
|Can you also confirm whether you have received any lobbying, or support, from Syngenta directly or any other firm or trade body related to the sale of neocotinid or related pesticide products?