Bee protection or not

Bienenschutz oder doch nicht

Guest

http://www.doitgarden.ch/de/garten/pflanzenpflege/pflanzenschutzmittel/spray-gegen-schaedlinge--500-ml/pp.658408200000

Supplementary information

SP1 Do not allow product and/or its container to enter bodies of water.
SPE8 Hazardous to bees / To protect bees and other pollinating insects, do not apply to flowering crops / Do not apply where bees are actively foraging / Hives must be removed or covered during application and for (specify time) after treatment / Do not apply in the presence of flowering weeds / Weeds must be removed before flowering / Do not apply before (specify time).
BGEF_EUH401 To avoid risks to humans and the environment, follow the instructions for use.

Declarable substances

Lambda-cyhalothrin 0.015 g/l

(Machine translation)

All replies (125)

Guest

migroleum writes: I have so much time to invest,

ooooooooooooooooooooh you poor thing, if I find time tonight I might occasionally take pity on you. ?

(Machine translation)

Guest

Thank you @deactivated user, time well spent. Always nice that there are still people who stand up for what is right.

(Machine translation)

Guest

When will the promise be reactivated?

(Machine translation)

Guest

Hello@deactivated user
The pledge will be unlocked with the relaunch of the site in October.
Best regards, Simone

(Machine translation)

Guest

There are now exactly 5 weeks left. I'm already curious to see in which form the "new" promise is to be reactivated.

(Machine translation)

Loxiran

The appeal period has expired. Migros has not lodged an appeal against the decision of the Fair Trading Commission. Therefore, the decision of the Fair Trading Commission, re:
No. 152/16 (Green Marketing - promise to protect bees), can be found on the page
http://www.faire-werbung.ch/29-6-2016-dritte-kammer-verfahren/
has been published.

Briefly summarized once again:
"A promise that no insect and plant protection products will be offered that endanger bees is not kept if products with ingredients that are considered "harmful to bees" continue to be sold.
...
The average addressee may expect from the communication that no more "bee-damaging" or "bee-hazardous" ingredients are used. He does not have to deal with technical details, legal requirements and studies by NGOs in order to be able to assess the truth of an advertising claim. It is also irrelevant which application poses a risk to bees. The fact that the respondent's insect and plant protection products in 2016 contain substances that are harmful to bees makes the statement that is the subject of the complaint an unfair statement. The complaint must therefore be upheld.

The respondent is recommended to refrain from using the contested statement as long as it does not correspond to the facts"

The full decision can be found at
http://www.faire-werbung.ch/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/LK3290616.pdf
.

Otherwise, here is the full text of the decision again:

d) No. 152/16
(Green marketing - promise to protect bees)

The Third Chamber,

whereas:

1 The complainant directs his complaint against the advertising statement "We promise Noah that from the end of 2014 we will only offer insecticides and plant protection products that do not endanger bees." This is misleading, as the respondent continues to offer such products for sale, which contain substances that are dangerous for bees.

2 In its statement, the respondent explained that the advertising statement in question was neither misleading nor false and therefore not unfair. The available products are only dangerous for bees if they are directly exposed to the spray mist. It requests that the complaint be dismissed.

3 Anyone who makes false or misleading statements about their products is acting unfairly and unlawfully (Art. 3 para. 1 lit. b of the Unfair Competition Act, UCA). The requirement of the accuracy of a statement is measured by the understanding of the average addressee (Principle No. 1.1 No. 2 of the Commission on Fair Trading).

4 In the opinion of the deciding chamber of the Commission on Fair Trading, the advertising statement in question is incorrect and therefore unfair. A promise that no insect and plant protection products are offered that endanger bees is not kept if products with ingredients that are considered "harmful to bees" continue to be sold.

5 The advertising promise is absolute and is perceived as such by the average addressee. The respondent's relativization, according to which the promise was based on a study by Greenpeace, which identified seven active ingredients as harmful to bees, which is why these seven active ingredients are no longer used in insecticides and plant protection products, and that this study was communicated together with the advertising promise, fails.

6 The average addressee cannot recognize from the contested commercial communication
that only certain active substances are to be banned. The respondent also states with regard to the Greenpeace study that it "identified substances that are critical for bees". In doing so, it omits any relativization. Furthermore, the respondent claims that "all products" have contained "no bee-critical substances" since the end of 2014.

7 Based on the communication, the average addressee may expect that no "bee-harmful" or "bee-hazardous" ingredients are used. They do not have to deal with technical details, legal requirements and studies by NGOs,
in order to be able to assess the truth of an advertising claim. It is also irrelevant which application poses a risk to bees. The fact that the respondent's insecticides and pesticides contain substances that are harmful to bees in 2016 makes the statement that is the subject of the complaint an unfair statement. The complaint must therefore be upheld.

decides:

The respondent is recommended to refrain from using the contested statement as long as it does not correspond to the facts.