A federal court in Northern California on May 8 ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) erred when it allowed registration of dozens of pesticides containing a class of chemicals called neonicotinoids.

Neonicotinoids, which have been temporarily and partially banned in the European Union and restricted in several U.S. states including Maryland and Connecticut, have been targeted for years by environmentalists and others as being at least part of the cause of colony collapse disorder, which has led to a startling loss of honey bees and other pollinators in the United States and around the world.

The lawsuit against the EPA was filed by beekeepers, environmental groups and the Center for Food Safety (CFS), whose lawyers handled the case. CFS issued a statement saying the court ruled that “the EPA violated the Endangered Species Act when it issued 59 neonicotinoid insecticide registrations between 2007 and 2012 for pesticide products containing clothianidin and thiamethoxam… The 2013 lawsuit focused on the EPA’s failure to protect pollinators from dangerous pesticides and challenged EPA’s oversight of the bee-killing pesticides, clothianidin and thiamethoxam, as well as the agency’s practice of ‘conditional registration’ and labeling deficiencies.”

The plaintiffs won parts of the lawsuit but not others. One of the parts that was upheld was that the EPA had a responsibility to consult with the Federal Wildlife Service (FWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) about whether the pesticides involved could possibly harm threatened or endangered species.

One of the defenses EPA cited for failing to respond to a request from plaintiffs for emergency action on the pesticides was that the plaintiffs provided no information regarding any economic harm that would be caused if this class of pesticides were to be banned, which EPA is required to consider.

But when one looks at what the EPA itself has had to say about the impact of the pesticides, one wonders whether policies like this that restrain it from acting in acute cases need to be radically changed to protect the environment.

Consider the following statements that were cited in the court ruling. There was an EPA “Pesticide Fact Sheet” specifically regarding clothianidin, which said, “exposure to treated seeds through ingestion may result in chronic toxic risk to... endangered small birds (e.g., songbirds) and acute/chronic toxicity risk to endangered mammals.”

The EPA also said, “Clothianidin is expected to present acute and/or chronic toxic risk to endangered/threatened birds and mammals via possible ingestion of treated corn and canola seeds,” and, “Endangered/threatened non-target insects may be impacted via residue-laden pollen and nectar.”

The EPA also said that “only a few seeds” of corn or canola treated with clothianidin “may be necessary to cause reproductive and/or development effects” on endangered birds and mammals.

Regarding thiamethoxam, there was an EPA document identifying about 800 “federally listed and endangered species that will potentially be affected from thiamethoxam usage” on blackberries, broccoli, collards, grapes, lettuce, and other specified crops.”

The judge did not say that the EPA had to immediately ban the 59 pesticides that were the subject of the lawsuit, or that the EPA had to rescind the registrations until the agency consulted with FWS or NMFS. Instead U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney ordered the plaintiffs, the EPA and Bayer Crop Science, which manufactures the pesticides, to schedule a conference and try to come up with a settlement to the case.

That’s not going to be easy. CFS estimates that neonicotinoid-based pesticides are spread on 150 million to 200 million acres of cropland every year in the United States, and that represents an awful lot of profit. But will banning the pesticides result in actual economic harm?

Not surprisingly, supporters claim that banning neonicotinoids will result in lower crop years and economic harm. But some evidence suggests that concern is overblown. In 2014 some farmers in Iowa raised soybeans with and without neonicotinoids and found little difference in yields.

Still, when a highly profitable drug company teams up with a U.S. regulatory agency against bee keepers and environmentalists, too often the victories go to those with the most money. Over time, however, the environment and the good of the people can become the victors as they did with the battle and eventual ban against DDT and many other harmful substances. It seems that the battle against neonicotinoids is heading in that direction.

It’s a shame though that those who champion a clean environment and the health of the planet must continue to fight the good fight over and over again.