Debates on causality are at the core of controversies as regards environmental changes. The present paper presents a new method for analyzing controversies on causality in a context of social debate and the results of its empirical testing. The case study used is the controversy as regards the role played by the insecticide Gaucho (R), compared with other supposed causal factors, in the substantial honeybee ( Apis mellifera L.) losses reported to have occurred in France between 1994 and 2004. The method makes use of expert elicitation of the perceived strength of evidence regarding each of Bradford Hill's causality criteria, as regards the link between each of eight possible causal factors identified in attempts to explain each of five signs observed in honeybee colonies. These judgments are elicited from stakeholders and experts involved in the debate, i.e., representatives of Bayer Cropscience, of the Ministry of Agriculture, of the French Food Safety Authority, of beekeepers and of public scientists. We show that the intense controversy observed in confused and passionate public discourses is much less salient when the various arguments are structured using causation criteria. The contradictions between the different expert views have a triple origin: ( 1) the lack of shared definition and quantification of the signs observed in colonies; ( 2) the lack of specialist knowledge on honeybees; and ( 3) the strategic discursive practices associated with the lack of trust between experts representing stakeholders having diverging stakes in the case.