> "The NRDC said the EPA failed to meet the legal deadline 
> to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request for 
> documents related to the pesticide's [clothianidin's]
> possible impact on honey bees."

> Anyone know what happened to this lawsuit?

Yes - it went nowhere, fast.  
In short, NRDC demanded several truckloads of documents with one of the
broadest requests one could ask of the EPA, and then filed suit when the
data requested was not delivered on a silver platter exactly 20 days later.
Pure grandstanding for fund-raising and promotional purposes.  Once the
press releases had gotten attention, the NRDC dropped the suit.

http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/about/factsheets/protectbees_fs.html
"EPA Responds to NRDC's 2008 Freedom of Information Act Complaint
Status Update: EPA produced thousands of pages of regulatory records and
environmental effects data in response to NRDC's 2008 Freedom of Information
Act request discussed below. There was never a Court order requiring
production. NRDC's case was dismissed by stipulation on October 27, 2009."

The EPA still has their reply letter:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/nrdc_bees.pdf
to the suit listed both on the "factsheet" for bee protection and on the CCD
page:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/intheworks/honeybee.htm

The essential shaming of the NRDC was this:

"NRDC's request was for all records related to all of our 'FIFRA section 3
registrations on FIFRA section 18 emergency exemptions' for clothianidin.
Given the extensive amount of data and information that EPA evaluates in
making these kinds of decisions, your request is for a very large number of
documents.  Not providing these documents in 20 days hardly constitutes a
cover-up...  In a follow-up letter, on August 14, 2008, we explain that the
FOIA request itself was very broad and extensive and would require
additional time beyond the 20-day deadline for the Agency to fully respond
to all of the material requested."

So, the request was maliciously made, knowing that the statutory deadline
could not be met, simply to allow a baseless suit to be filed, to create
fodder for yet another fund-raising press release.  Even when they got a
proper response explaining that the request was too massive to be timely,
they still sued.  "Save the bees", indeed. 

"CCD" in this case stood for NRDC's "Credibility Collapse Disorder".  (I
wrote an article about all this, but it was pulled down and shoved into an
Orwellian Memory Hole by "The Daily Green" after less than a day, so I guess
the NRDC did not like having their tactics made so public.) 


But that was nothing compared to what came next!  
The NRDC then decided to sue the EPA over how many times the EPA should
solicit public comments for any one pesticide, using Spirotetramat as an
example.  The EPA did not follow the exact wording of the regulation, they
did not solicited comments as often as the regulations required.  But no one
at all had commented in the prior comment period, so the EPA asked "wouldn't
yet another comment period have been moot?" 

No, said the court, and ruled for the NRDC on that part of their complaint.

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2009c
v04317/345268/82/0.pdf

But that was when the NRDC learned that their attempt to "ban a bee-killing
pesticide" had backfired.  

http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/factsheets/spirotetramat-canc-order.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/csb_page/updates/2010/spirotetramat.html

The key entertaining paragraph is below (citations removed, and emphasis
added):

"[The Court] vacated all registrations issued by EPA for pesticide products
containing the active ingredient 
spirotetramat.  There is no corresponding provision of FIFRA that prohibits
USE (as opposed to distribution or sale) of unregistered pesticides.
Furthermore, section 12(a)(2)(G) only makes it a violation of FIFRA for any
person to "use any REGISTERED pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its
labeling"; there is no provision that requires that unregistered pesticides
(including formerly-registered pesticides) be used according to their
labels. Thus, in the absence of EPA action, users of unregistered pesticides
are NOT OBLIGATED TO FOLLOW THE LABELING (which, for registered pesticides,
prescribes enforceable conditions for using the particular pesticide, among
other things) accompanying the product. Therefore, once the registrations
are terminated, unless EPA takes action, persons holding stocks of
spirotetramat will not be legally precluded from using those stocks without
following label directions, INCLUDING THE RESTRICTIONS on timing of
applications that EPA required in order TO PROTECT BEES."

Breathtaking, isn't it? The court order had no effect except to allow
pesticide use with complete disregard for any/all regulations, thus creating
a far bigger risk for bees than would otherwise exist.  And the EPA is
forced into the role of savior to the bees, scrambling to implement a
"comment period" to satisfy the unyielding and unreasonable demands of the
callous and reckless NRDC, who cares not a whit for the actual impact on the
environment or pollinators.  

I called and left a voice mail for the author of that notice.  I said "Well
Played, Sir!"

But the NRDC actually doesn't seem to care what happens to actual bees, they
are in the fund-raising, suit-filing, and press release-issuing business.
Bees are nothing but another "cause" for them to exploit in their endless
cycle of suing the EPA every chance they get over ever-more-trivial issues.

Would that even half of all that money might be used to fund research...

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html