Frankfurt Regional Court: End of the taking of evidence in the glyphosate trial
A beekeeper is suing an agricultural company for using glyphosate. He had to dispose of his contaminated honey and give up the business. Could the court decision be landmark?
The district court in Frankfurt (Oder) will announce its decision on June 20 in the lawsuit brought by a beekeeper against an agricultural company because of the use of the controversial pesticide glyphosate. This was announced by court spokesman Jasper Schüler-Dahlke on Monday. The taking of evidence had been completed and the assessment of the extent of the damage had been examined. In the process, the beekeeper is demanding compensation for contaminated honey. His lawyer and the Aurelia Foundation, which supports the plaintiff, are confident that the company will ultimately have to bear some of the blame.
In the spring of 2019, the beekeeper from Biesenthal (Barnim) set up his beehives next to an area managed by the agricultural company. This area is the property of the State of Berlin acquired by the Aurelia Foundation. At the end of April 2019, the company reportedly treated the area with plant protection products containing glyphosate. The bees carry the contaminated nectar or pollen into the beehive. Wax and honey should have been destroyed – according to the lawyer, 510 kilograms of honey. The damage is around 14,500 euros. According to his own statements, the beekeeper had to give up his business.
Subsequent laboratory analyzes of the honey provided the Aurelia Foundation with the assumption that the permitted maximum levels for glyphosate were exceeded by a factor of up to 152. According to its own statements, the foundation is committed to nature conservation, in particular to bees and bee-friendly agriculture.
Bees belong in agriculture, and farmers have to assume that they are there and act accordingly, said Thomas Radetzki, CEO of the Aurelia Foundation. The process before the district court made it clear that there were deficits in the regulation between farms and beekeepers, he said. With a decision by the beekeeper, the pressure can be increased to be more careful with the use of the pesticide and to heed warnings from the state office.
The plant protection service of the State Office for Rural Development, Agriculture and Land Consolidation regularly calls for the protection of bees and flower-visiting insects to be observed when plant protection measures are started. This applies in particular to the use of pesticides in flowering crops and weeds. It is just as important to prevent pesticide residues in honey, according to the authority’s website.
The lawyer for the complaining beekeeper and the Aurelia Foundation are hoping for a precedent in the proceedings because it is about a fundamental question as to who is responsible. The matter should also be clarified for the entire beekeeping community.
(dpa)