WTF??

I'm still confused

On the 3rd July Defra turned down an application from the NFU to allow the use of neonicitinoid impregnated oil seed rape seed.
At the time Defra insisted it 'takes a science-based approach when considering applications to use neonicotinoids.'

On the 9th July it was rumoured the NFU would make a second application.

On the 22nd July Defra have agreed an application.from the NFU to allow the use of neonicotinoid impregnated oil seed rape seed.
Defra said “We have fully applied the precautionary ban on the use of neonicotinoids introduced by the EU, and we make decisions on pesticides based on the science only once the regulators are satisfied they are safe to people and the environment.

“Based on the evidence, we have followed the advice of the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides and our chief scientist that a limited emergency authorisation of two pesticides requested by farmers should be granted in areas where oilseed rape crops are at greatest risk of pest damage.”

OK, so on 3rd July it turns down NFU's application using 'a science based approach' yet 19 days later it approves the application saying their decision was ' based on the science only'.
What caused the change I wonder? This is purely a rhetorical question as I'll never find out.
In this area 'scientific evidence' is an oxymoron but not even the NFU could have found an independent scientist [another oxymoron] to provide conclusive evidence to support their case.
If they had we would all have heard about it.

Defra say 'Based on the evidence, we have followed the advice of the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides' yet in the Guardian it appears :-

The NFU told the Guardian the Expert Committee on Pesticides (ECP), part of the Health and Safety Executive, refused to back its request. Ministers said the final decision had yet to be made, but on Thursday the NFU submitted new applications targeting smaller areas of the country.
The ECP website says that for openness and transparency, minutes of meetings are routinely published after three weeks. But the notes of a crucial 20 May meeting have yet to appear, as has the agenda of another meeting on 7 July.
“This is to enable government to have the time and space to consider applications for emergency authorisations without having to provide interim comment or provoking representations from different interest groups whose views on the issue are well known.”
The gagging by Defra appears to contravene the ECP’s terms of reference, which state that “the committee will make its scientific conclusions and recommendations available to the public and other interested parties in a way which aims to be comprehensive, clear and timely. The committee will decide its own publication schedule.
Furthermore, the government’s code of practice for science advisory committees states that they “should expect to operate free of influence from the sponsor department officials or ministers”.

 Also, Defra have refused to make details of the NFU application public
Nothing suspicious about that at all.

The newspapers predictably got into 'eco horror' overdrive not mentioning the relaxation only relates to 5% of the OSR in England and where 'the treated seed must be targeted to areas where the need for the pesticides is deemed the greatest'.

The four counties where the neonic OSR will be used are Herts, Cambridgeshire, Suffolk
and .......... Bedfordshire.