Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Major Report concludes: "Neonicotinoids are An Unnacceptable Danger to Bees"

25K views 65 replies 21 participants last post by  TheBuzz 
#1 · (Edited)
Major Report concludes: "Neonicotinoids are An Unnacceptable Danger to Bees"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/29/crop-pesticides-honeybee-decline?intcmp=239



The world's most widely used insecticides (Imidacloprid) has for the first time been officially labelled an "unacceptable danger to bees feeding on flowering crops". Environmental campaigners say the conclusion, by European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), sounds the "death knell" for the insect nerve-agent.

The chemical's manufacturer, Bayer, claimed the report, released on Wednesday, did not alter existing risk assessments and warned against "over-interpretation of the precautionary principle".

The report comes just months after the UK government dismissed a fast-growing body of evidence of harm to bees as insufficient to justify banning the chemicals.

Bees and other pollinators are critical to one-third of all food, but two major studies in March 2012, and others since, have implicated neonicotinoid pesticides in the decline in the insects, alongside habitat loss and disease. In April, the European commission demanded a re-examination of the risks posed by the chemicals, including Bayer's widely used imidacloprid and two others.

Scientists at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), together with experts from across Europe, concluded on Wednesday that for imidacloprid "only uses on crops not attractive to honeybees were considered acceptable" because of exposure through nectar and pollen. Such crops include oil seed rape, corn and sunflowers. EFSA was asked to consider the acute and chronic effects on bee larvae, bee behaviour and the colony as a whole, and the risks posed by sub-lethal doses. But it found a widespread lack of information in many areas and had stated previously that current "simplistic" regulations contained "major weaknesses".

"This is a major turning point in the battle to save our bees," said Friends of the Earth's Andrew Pendleton: "EFSA have sounded the death knell for one of the chemicals most frequently linked to bee decline and cast serious doubt over the safety of the whole neonicotinoid family. Ministers must wake up to the fact that these chemicals come with an enormous sting in the tail by immediately suspending the use of these pesticides."

Prof David Goulson, at the University of Stirling and who led one of the key 2012 studies, said:
[B]"It is very pleasing that EFSA now acknowledge there are significant environmental risks associated with these chemicals. It begs the question of what was going on when these chemicals were first approved. Rachel Carson's Silent Spring was 50 years ago but we have not learned the lessons."[/B]

However, Bayer's Julian Little told the Guardian:
"We do not believe the new EFSA reports alter the quality and validity of [existing] risk assessments and the underlying studies. [But] the company is ready to work with the European commission and member states to address the perceived data gaps. We believe it is very important that any political decision relating to registrations of neonicotinoid-containing products should be based on clear scientific evidence of adverse effects … and not on the basis of an over-interpretation of the precautionary principle."

The chemical industry funded a report published on Tuesday claiming that banning neonicotinoids would cost farmers £620m in lost food production. But Goulson said the report contained "not a shred" of serious evidence.

A spokesman for the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) said:
[B]"This research will be examined by the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides and their advice will be considered by ministers. If it is concluded that restrictions on the use of neonicotinoids are necessary, they will be brought in." The spokesman said the results of new government field studies were expected imminently.[/B]

EFSA concluded that another neonicotinoid, thiamethoxam, was an "acute risk" to bees through droplets of sugary sap exuded by maize seedlings. But Mike Bushell, at thiamethoxam manufacturer Syngenta, said:
[B]"EFSA has focused on highly theoretical risks to bees, ignoring years of independent monitoring that demonstrates the identified risks are being managed through established stewardship practices."[/B] He said Syngenta's interpretation of studies was that there was "no evidence whatsoever"[/B] of an impact on bee colonies from sap droplets.

The effect of neonicotinoids on pollinators is under investigation by the UK parliament and the Guardian has learned that Bayer's spokesman, Julian Little, is being recalled to explain "discrepancies" in his evidence.

[B]"Our inquiry has identified apparent flaws in the assessment of imidacloprid," said Joan Walley MP, chair of the environmental audit committee. "Despite data from field trials showing the pesticide could linger in the environment at dangerous levels, imidacloprid was approved for use in the EU. We have asked chemical giant Bayer to return to parliament to explain discrepancies in its evidence on the amount of time that imidacloprid remains in the environment."


Walley added:
"The evidence seen by the committee raises serious questions about the integrity, transparency and effectiveness of EU
pesticides regulation." EFSA is responsible for providing expert assessments on safety risks, while national governments and the European commission are responsible for taking action. Bans on some neonicotinoid uses have already been implemented in France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia, but not, to date, in the UK
.

Evidence submitted to Walley's inquiry cites a long list of failings in current regulations. They include that it is only the effects on honeybees that are considered, despite 90% of pollination being performed by different species, such as bumblebees, hoverflies, butterflies, moths and others. Others are that the testing required is far too short to detect chronic or sublethal effects and that the regime was set up for pesticide sprays, not systemic chemicals like neonicotinoids that are used to treat seeds.

Even the National Farmers Union, which argues that there is no need for a change of approach to neonicotinoids, told MPs: "It is very well known that the current pesticide risk assessment systems for bees were not developed to assess systemic pesticides."

The National Farmers Union horticulture adviser Chris Hartfield, reacting to the EFSA report, said:
"Any decision to change the regulatory process, which in turn changes pesticide usage, will have an impact. It is essential that we fully understand all these impacts before taking action."
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Re: Major Report concludes: "Neonicotinoids are An Unnacceptable Danger to Bees"

And here in the US nothing will be done. A quote taken from the EPA's web site on neonicotinoids, "To EPA's knowledge, none of the incidents that led to suspensions (refering to France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia) have been associated with Colony Collapse Disorder."

http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/about/intheworks/ccd-european-ban.html
 
#66 ·
Re: Major Report concludes: "Neonicotinoids are An Unnacceptable Danger to Bees"

And here in the US nothing will be done. A quote taken from the EPA's web site on neonicotinoids, "To EPA's knowledge, none of the incidents that led to suspensions (refering to France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia) have been associated with Colony Collapse Disorder."

http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/about/intheworks/ccd-european-ban.html
Those darn Europeans. What do they know? It's not like most of Europe and Canada have kids with higher science scores. Oh wait they all do!!!
 
#3 ·
Re: Major Report concludes: "Neonicotinoids are An Unnacceptable Danger to Bees"

This may well be a valid concern that warrants close study ... but it comes from the Guardian, a paper that seldom tells the truth, and it praises Rachel Carson who was proven wrong in almost everything she said. So I have to wonder. These days it is hard to figure out which set of pseudo-scientists is telling the truth.
 
#6 ·
When you can't fault the facts, attack the messenger.

This may well be a valid concern that warrants close study ... but it comes from the Guardian, a paper that seldom tells the truth, and it praises Rachel Carson who was proven wrong in almost everything she said. So I have to wonder. These days it is hard to figure out which set of pseudo-scientists is telling the truth.
When people can't fault the facts, they turn to 'ad hominem' attacks - i.e. attack the messenger. Rachel Carson's singular achievement was she pointed out that DDT was a highly dangerous organochlorine that was killing birds by the millions - especially the raptors which were at the top of the food chain. Can you cite ANY paper which refutes those facts?

Secondly, the Guardian was merely reporting the publication of a report by the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) - more or less the equivalent of the EPA, except that it serves the 27 countries of the European Union rather than the 51 (?) States of the USA. The Guardian did not carry out any of these studies - they did not write this report; they merely reported on the conclusions of the report by EFSA - which was written by dozens of scientists from every one of the 27 member countries of the EU. That's a lot of brain power and a lot of universities.

In fact, the report carries even more weight, because EFSA is known to be an 'industry-friendly' agency - and just like the EPA it has steadfastly denied any connection between neonics and bee deaths for the last 15 years. What has changed is that the weight of scientific papers which confirm the causal link between neonics and the deaths of bees, other pollinators and birds - is now so overwhelming that even EFSA cannot carry on ignoring it. Sadly the EPA IS still ignoring it, but that is because the American EPA is largely an industry-front organisation - led by political appointees who used to work for Monsanto until Bush handed the EPA to them tied up in a pink ribbon.
 
#7 · (Edited)
Re: Major Report concludes: "Neonicotinoids are An Unnacceptable Danger to Bees"

Unfortunately bees are attracted to rapeseed/canola or is this a different plant.
Bees are attracted to canola, sunflowers, soya beans and cotton. But the real killer in the States is corn (maize). More than 92 million acres of American corn were treated with Clothianidion in 2010 and when you add in wheat, soya and canola the total acreage treated with neonicotinoids is well over 200 million acres.
Maize/ Corn produces vast amounts of pollen which is very attractive to bees - since in many midwestern areas corn will be the only 'pollen crop' available for weeks at a time. The pollen is contaminated with the neurotoxic pesticide (Imidacloprid/ Clothianidin/ Thiamethoxam) - at levels well above that which kills bees in the lab.

Clothianidin is about 7,000 times more toxic to bees than DDT was (official figures) and the EPA's own scientists recommended that it should NOT be given a license because it was:

  • Highly toxic to bees
  • Highly persistent in soil (up to 6,000 days / 19 years 'half life' on some clay soils)
  • Highly soluble and persistent in ground water - so danger of contaminating human drinking water.

Tragically, the EPA is not directed by its scientists but by political appointees - usually people who have worked for Monsanto or Bayer. The EPA looked at its scientists warnings and said "nah - that's OK - give it a license" - that was in 2003.

Since then, America has lost over 6 million bee colonies and untold billions of bumblebees, butterflies and other pollinators.

The Purdue Study on neonics measured the amount of Clothianidin used to coat a single corn seed at planting. This averaged 1.25mg per seed - which is enough poison to kill 200,000 bees - that's about 4 hives worth.

I recommend reading Michael Shacker's book 'A Spring Without Bees' - which tells the whole sad story. $10 on Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/Spring-without-Bees-Collapse-Endangered/dp/B005HKP058
 
#8 ·
No problems in Canada - think again!

http://thecanadian.org/item/1413-the-bee%E2%80%99s-needs-pesticide-miranda-holmes

Every winter since 2006 when the term colony collapse disorder (CCD) was coined, commercial bee keepers in Canada have been losing an average of 30% of their bees. (Last winter, south and central Vancouver Island bee keepers lost 80% of their colonies
.) To stay in business they are now importing bees from New Zealand.

There is as yet no definitive scientific explanation for why the bees are dying – or simply disappearing – but there is a great body of evidence to suggest the culprit is a family of insecticides called neonicotinoids, which are now widely used in agriculture worldwide.

It’s been known since these chemicals came onto the market in 1995 that they were extremely toxic to bees. Tragically, as with so many of the highly toxic chemicals regulators have allowed to be chucked into our environment since the 1950s, it was only after the fact that independent scientific research began indicating quite how bad the problem is.

Long story short: It now seems likely that exposing bees to this family of insecticides compromises their immune systems and is roughly the equivalent of deliberately giving them AIDS.
How did Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) and other regulatory agencies around the world allow this to happen?

Simple: The primary information considered by the PMRA is provided by the manufacturers who make millions of dollars from their patented chemical compounds. As if this process wasn’t suspect enough, even when the studies provided are deemed insufficient, PMRA may provide temporary or conditional registrations.

Research by Anne Sherrod of the Valhalla Wilderness Society reveals that increasing commercial use of products based on imidacloprid (a particularly worrying neonicotinoid) has been based, since 2001, on registrations deemed “temporary pending further studies”.

According to the PMRA, imidacloprid has been actively under re-evaluation since 2009. However, Access to Information Act requests to the agency have produced no evidence to support this claim. Meanwhile, imidacloprid and other neonicotinoid products continue to be widely used on vegetables, fruit, nuts and grain.

The PMRA points out that these lethal products must come with labels warning farmers not to apply the insecticide when plants are in flower or bees are nearby. This vacuous mitigation ignores the fact that these systemic insecticides are absorbed into every part of the plant, including the pollen and nectar. Despite their well-documented threat to bees, the PMRA justifies approving these products because of their “value” to human food production.
 
#9 ·
Re: No problems in Canada - think again!

>The pollen is contaminated with the neurotoxic pesticide (Imidacloprid/ Clothianidin/ Thiamethoxam) - at levels well above that which kills bees in the lab.

bbm, can you give a a reference for this?
 
#11 ·
Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports

>The pollen is contaminated with the neurotoxic pesticide (Imidacloprid/ Clothianidin/ Thiamethoxam) - at levels well above that which kills bees in the lab.

bbm, can you give a a reference for this?
There is a new charity/ Not for profit called 'Small Blue Marble' which has placed all the key papers about the neonicotinoids / bees issue online for free, Please visit this link:

http://smallbluemarble.org.uk/research/

ONE crucial report from the USA which is highly relevant to anyone who keeps bees near corn fields - is the KRUPKE study from Indiana University.
Here:

http://smallbluemarble.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Krupke-2012.pdf

ABSTRACT:

Abstract
Populations of honey bees and other pollinators have declined worldwide in recent years. A variety of stressors have been
implicated as potential causes, including agricultural pesticides. Neonicotinoid insecticides, which are widely used and
highly toxic to honey bees, have been found in previous analyses of honey bee pollen and comb material. However, the
routes of exposure have remained largely undefined. We used LC/MS-MS to analyze samples of honey bees, pollen stored in
the hive and several potential exposure routes associated with plantings of neonicotinoid treated maize. Our results
demonstrate that bees are exposed to these compounds and several other agricultural pesticides in several ways
throughout the foraging period. During spring, extremely high levels of clothianidin and thiamethoxam were found in
planter exhaust material produced during the planting of treated maize seed. We also found neonicotinoids in the soil of
each field we sampled, including unplanted fields. Plants visited by foraging bees (dandelions) growing near these fields
were found to contain neonicotinoids as well. This indicates deposition of neonicotinoids on the flowers, uptake by the root
system, or both. Dead bees collected near hive entrances during the spring sampling period were found to contain
clothianidin as well, although whether exposure was oral (consuming pollen) or by contact (soil/planter dust) is unclear. We
also detected the insecticide clothianidin in pollen collected by bees and stored in the hive. When maize plants in our field
reached anthesis, maize pollen from treated seed was found to contain clothianidin and other pesticides; and honey bees in
our study readily collected maize pollen. These findings clarify some of the mechanisms by which honey bees may be
exposed to agricultural pesticides throughout the growing season. These results have implications for a wide range of largescale
annual cropping systems that utilize neonicotinoid seed treatments.
 
#10 ·
Re: No problems in Canada - think again!

from a recent lecture by mark lynas, a well-respected environmentalist and countryman of yours:

"So my message to the anti-GM lobby, from the ranks of the British aristocrats and celebrity chefs to the US foodies to the peasant groups of India is this. You are entitled to your views. But you must know by now that they are not supported by science. We are coming to a crunch point, and for the sake of both people and the planet, now is the time for you to get out of the way and let the rest of us get on with feeding the world sustainably."

http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-conference-3-january-2013/
 
#12 ·
Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports

i am familiar with the krupke et. al. study, and no where in it is your claim:

"The pollen is contaminated with the neurotoxic pesticide (Imidacloprid/ Clothianidin/ Thiamethoxam) - at levels well above that which kills bees in the lab."
 
#13 ·
Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports

you are free to believe as you wish, i prefer to stick with the facts as they are presently understood, (and subject to change as new and valid information comes to light).

here is a recent review by someone whose understanding is based on science fact and not science fiction:

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sic...llapse-revisited-genetically-modified-plants/
 
#16 · (Edited by Moderator)
Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports

You appear to be an industry insider??
:) i'll answer that when you provide me the reference for your claim:

"The pollen is contaminated with the neurotoxic pesticide (Imidacloprid/ Clothianidin/ Thiamethoxam) - at levels well above that which kills bees in the lab."
 
#15 ·
Re: No problems in Canada - think again!

...the problem with the Lynus "confession" is that he also admitted to never having read a peer reviewed study on plant biology. It is easy for an ignorant person to change their mind. ...which is the real problem here. If one is willing to mislead (or lead out of ignorance) in order to cause others to take action, all they are really doing is creating a group of believers that are ripe to believe the next lie....and the next lie is bound to be more attractive.

Deknow
 
#17 ·
Re: No problems in Canada - think again!

...the problem with the Lynus "confession" is that he also admitted to never having read a peer reviewed study on plant biology. It is easy for an ignorant person to change their mind. ...which is the real problem here. If one is willing to mislead (or lead out of ignorance) in order to cause others to take action, all they are really doing is creating a group of believers that are ripe to believe the next lie....and the next lie is bound to be more attractive.

Deknow
good morning dean. you are probably better read than i on gmo's, what's your take?
 
#23 ·
Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports

thanks for your thoughtful answer dean.

another poster points out that agriculture as practiced by humans has never been 'natural'.

it appears that only time will tell if the correct balance of risk/benefit is acheived with gmo's.

so far, there seem to be more upsides than downsides, jmho.
 
#25 ·
Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports

another poster points out that agriculture as practiced by humans has never been 'natural'.
Of course not. It is a common argument for GMO's to state that there is nothing "unnatural" about GMO....it is rarely (if ever) argued that GMOs are completely contrary to nature, yet "good".

it appears that only time will tell if the correct balance of risk/benefit is acheived with gmo's.
so far, there seem to be more upsides than downsides, jmho.
1. Unless you can list (and quantify) the "downsides" along with the "benefits", it is impossible to compare them.
2. It seems to me that humans have much the same general motivations as the rest of nature. Unless one can imagine an infinite future of a perfect well run government/regulation of GMO technology, it is impossible not to assume that at some point, in a quest for profit, any "balance" will be breached (think of a Bernie Madoff type of cheat....but one that can escape and reproduce). Already Bt is losing its efficacy because it is easy to build a resistance to something that is always present. How many replicating proteins are we willing to release into the wild? What are we willing to give up in return?

deknow
 
#26 ·
Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports

all good points dean.

cleary, it is erroneous to claim there is nothing 'unatural' about gmo's.

and the profit motive as you point out can be a deliterious factor.

one obvious upside would be reduced spraying and drifting of insecticides.

another might be increased production at a reduced cost, but i'll have to defer to the farmers on that one.

the biggest downside i'm aware of is the risk posed if quantities of neonics are released in dust clouds when proper precautions are not taken during planting.

do you have a list of up and downsides with quantification?

i'm no expert on gmo's nor an industry insider, just someone with a vested interest trying to stay informed.
 
#28 ·
Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports

cleary, it is erroneous to claim there is nothing 'unatural' about gmo's.
...but it is important to understand what the "it's natural" argument is if you want to understand why it is misleading (at best).
one obvious upside would be reduced spraying and drifting of insecticides.
Well, it would be...but it doesn't appear to be in practice. GMO corn with Bt inserted into it's DNA (and produced by the plant) has made Bt largely uselss...because it doesn't have to get sprayed....it sprays itself.
Also, note that almost all of the GMO corn is also seed coated with neonics (an alarming amount by any measure).
Also note that the other popular GMO option, "roundup ready" actually increases herbicide spraying.

another might be increased production at a reduced cost, but i'll have to defer to the farmers on that one.
...which is also what the farming methods that led the the dust bowl were after.
the biggest downside i'm aware of is the risk posed if quantities of neonics are released in dust clouds when proper precautions are not taken during planting.
You've got to clear this up in your head. Imidacloprid is a systemic insecticide that is applied to seed, soil, trunk, or leaf. Imidacloprid is not inserted into the genes of the plant, it is not produced by the plant....it is distributed throughout the plant, and it is often used when GMOs are also used (especially in corn).
do you have a list of up and downsides with quantification?
I didn't claim that one could make such an analysis at this point.

deknow
 
#27 ·
Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports

The world's most widely used insecticides (Imidacloprid) ... -borderbeeman
I see this sort of claim bandied about, but I'm puzzled as to what, exactly, it means. It almost certainly isn't based on the amounts applied. So, what exactly does it mean? Applied in the most varied sorts of formulations? How are such things measured?

I'll be honest, I didn't get much farther than that in reading the initial post. I realize that virtually all insecticides pose threats to virtually all insects that come in contact with them. Despite that, let me just say that I have used and continue to use some pesticides, neonicotinoids and even imidacloprid specifically among them. Ever check to see that sort of active ingredient is in that top-spot application you just made to your pets? If a neonicotinoid can persist for weeks or even months in the ground or in a plant and be transferred after that time to pollen in a plant, is it much more of a stretch to imagine that the waste products excreted by a pet might also contain these systemic insecticides, which could then be taken up by plants growing at those sites, and later transferred into the pollen of flowers produced by those plants?

I regard broad-leaf herbicides as being among the most detrimental pesticides to bees, yet few people seem to want to tackle addressing the dangers of reducing or eliminating populations of flowering plants that rely on and support populations of pollinating insects.
 
#29 ·
Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports

yep, the unintended consequences and lack of a crystal ball. i guess those prarie land farmers had no way of predicting those years of severe drought and windstorms.

so do we proceed with advances and trust that in the end we do more good than harm, and learn from our (hopefully not irreversible) mistakes?

when it comes to feeding the world, do we have safer and sustainable alternatives?

i don't know enough about it to comment.
 
#36 ·
Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports

yep, the unintended consequences and lack of a crystal ball. i guess those prarie land farmers had no way of predicting those years of severe drought and windstorms.
Some unintended consequences are predictable, some aren't....but you should do a little reading up on the causes of the dust bowl...short term thinking wrt farming practices paid off short term (with predictable long term results).

so do we proceed with advances and trust that in the end we do more good than harm, and learn from our (hopefully not irreversible) mistakes?
Talking about "advances" is like talking about "change". What do these advances look like? Who benefits? What are the impacts? What separates an "advancement" from a "mistake"?

when it comes to feeding the world, do we have safer and sustainable alternatives?
What does "feeding the world" mean? Who do you want to feed? What resources do you want to spend feeding them? How many humans is the earth supposed to be able to support? Is it in our own best interest to use GMO technology to up the number of humans we can support? Can we expect a stable and "sustainable" result form doing so?



deknow
 
#30 ·
Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports

Also, note that almost all of the GMO corn is also seed coated with neon's ... -deknow
Right. Ironic, but it's true. Purchasing "naked" transgenic seed is a challenge. And, in an ironic sort of way, it makes sense. See, the Bt traits are specific against specific herbivores on corn. Bt traits target European corn borer and corn rootworm larvae and corn earworm and some other specific insects. Those traits drive the price of the seed up, but they don't protect it against insects that might consume the seed before or as it germinates. To protect the investment of the seed, seed companies and growers desire the seed treatments on those pricey seeds.

I'm still pretty undecided about what this means for bees. I've spent thousands of hours counting insects in corn fields, yet I rarely have encountered more than an isolated individual honey bee at any time in corn. I've never observed them collecting dew or water from guttation in corn. I do not commonly see them collecting pollen from corn. It certainly may happen, and it may happen far more frequently under different sorts of conditions, but I haven't seen much evidence that bees utilize corn fields much.

You've got to clear this up in your head. -deknow
I read that much differently than you, I think. The cited study from the U. S. about the risks of seed treatments (neonicotinoids, in particular) stated that the greatest risk to honey bees directly seemed to come from planting under very dry, dusty conditions and allowing dust from those seed treatments to drift onto plants blooming or about to bloom around the edges of those fields. Dandelions, in particular, were cited as a plant that takes up neonicotinoids under those field conditions. That makes sense to me.
 
#37 ·
Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports

See, the Bt traits are specific against specific herbivores on corn. Bt traits target European corn borer and corn rootworm larvae and corn earworm and some other specific insects...but they don't protect it against insects that might consume the seed before or as it germinates. To protect the investment of the seed, seed companies and growers desire the seed treatments on those pricey seeds.
Yes, but in fact, the corn rootworm has been developing resistance to Bt.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/09/us-monsanto-corn-idUSBRE82815Z20120309

...something that was so predictable, that it was actually predicted.
http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/playing-god-in-the-garden/


I read that much differently than you, I think. The cited study from the U. S. about the risks of seed treatments (neonicotinoids, in particular) stated that the greatest risk to honey bees directly seemed to come from planting under very dry, dusty conditions.....[/QUOTE]
Yes, that is what the study ended up saying...but the effective mode of action of these systemic pesticides is that the plant takes them up and expresses them throughout their tissue. This is entirely different from a Bt gene that is spliced into the DNA of the corn so that the corn itself produces and expresses the toxin.

deknow
 
#32 ·
Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports

I do not commonly see them collecting pollen from corn. It certainly may happen, and it may happen far more frequently under different sorts of conditions, but I haven't seen much evidence that bees utilize corn fields much.
My bees often collect pollen from a cornfield close to one of my yards. The seed is treated. I have noticed no problems from this practice and the hives have good survival [100% last year and around 85% this year so far]. But the farmer does not plant with an air planter so I escape that problem.
 
#33 ·
Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports

Agree with camero on bees in corn, can't say anything about effects on the bees, but the fields can be 'buzzing' although, I don't see a lot of bees, but can sure hear them. It's easy to say gmo and neonics go hand in hand for some crops.... 90% of the corn is gmo.... if 90% was non gmo, I still think most of it would be treated. I hear conflicting reports... France is back pedaling, no noticeable improvements since the ban, but again, I've seen documentaries claim otherwise. I think it warrants study, the persistance bothers me the most.

deknow, overall use of herbicides have increased I believe when you look at the numbers, but it also comes from the fact that a lot more land became available to farm using the technology. I think if you looked at amounts per acre, there is still a decrease in pesticide usage. I don't understand why people are surprised when resistance comes up. We all know the result of using the same trait over and over is. People just look at the $$, don't want to reduce income with proper rotations or refuge requirements anymore because it's just too easy now.
 
#34 ·
Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports

I don't understand why people are surprised when resistance comes up. We all know the result of using the same trait over and over is. People just look at the $$, don't want to reduce income with proper rotations or refuge requirements anymore because it's just too easy now.
Some beekeepers should read this in reference to their mite treatments. That's why some treatments don't work anymore!
 
#35 ·
Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports

O.K., so we believe/know/accept that insecticides can be lethal to honey bees. Now, what comes about because of it?

In the initial post, the summary stated that "neonicotinoids are an unacceptable risk to honey bees." That's pretty strong language. If that risk is truly unacceptable, something has to give. What? Get rid of neonicotinoids? I doubt that will happen any time soon. Stop keeping honey bees? I doubt most beekeepers would go along with that. So, what?

The initial post also states:

Scientists at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), together with experts from across Europe, concluded on Wednesday that for imidacloprid "only uses on crops not attractive to honeybees were considered acceptable" because of exposure through nectar and pollen. Such crops include oil seed rape, corn and sunflowers. -borderbeeman
I checked the EFSA's Web site, and found this press release from Wednesday, January 16, 2013:

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/...age&utm_medium=infocus&utm_campaign=beehealth

I can't find where they state generally that neonicotinoids pose an unacceptable risk to honey bees. They seem to specify that certain formulations and applications under certain conditions pose significant risk to bees, but they also stipulate that they lacked data to make final assessments.

Keep us posted, if you will, on what steps are taken in Europe regarding registrations and legal uses for some of these chemicals. I don't expect much for changes in North America in the near future based on demand for grains.
 
#38 ·
Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports

Yes, but in fact, the corn rootworm has been developing resistance to Bt. -deknow
I'm well aware. I stated such things even here on Beesource years ago. I've stated similar things with regards to all sorts of evolutionary adaptations, too. Bees adapting to tolerate mites, mites adapting to more efficiently parasitize those tolerant (or "resistant") bees, and so on the cycle goes.

But all that is beside the point of this thread. The point here is about neonicotinoids, the risks to bees, and what can/should be done about the situation.

... but the effective mode of action of these systemic pesticides is that the plant takes them up and expresses them throughout their tissue. -deknow
I think we're muddling the issue further here. I read the post by squarepeg as a simple statement of one of the conclusions of the paper. I didn't detect any confusion in his post between neonicotinoids and GMOs. I was attempting to clarify the way I read his comment.

I do think the idea of "expressing" neonicotinoids by systemic action confuses systemic pesticides and GMOs. Systemic insecticides like neonicotinoids are not "expressed." They are transported (that is, they are "systemic," or enter the vascular system of the plant. "Expression" gives a connotation that the plant is producing the insecticide from genetic information, rather than simply moving an applied chemical throughout the plant.

But I sense we're splitting hairs here. The real question remains: What will society choose to do about the issue?

And, more directly to the thread, what are possible recommended courses of action from rehashing ideas like here initially posted in this thread?
 
#39 ·
Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports

dean>"Some unintended consequences are predictable, some aren't....but you should do a little reading up on the causes of the dust bowl...short term thinking wrt farming practices paid off short term (with predictable long term results)."

i did a little reading on it since you brought it up. the folks at columbia have a different take than yours:

"had the SSTs been known in advance, it would have been possible to predict that the drought was to occur and, perhaps, the environmental and social catastrophe of the Dust Bowl could have been ameliorated."

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dustbowl.shtml

it's not that i disagree that unsustainable farming practices were employed, but to the point of this discussion, humanity has always been and continues to be on one huge learning curve.
 
#40 ·
Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports

i did a little reading on it since you brought it up. the folks at columbia have a different take than yours:
"had the SSTs been known in advance, it would have been possible to predict that the drought was to occur and, perhaps, the environmental and social catastrophe of the Dust Bowl could have been ameliorated."
...and how is this a "different take" than mine?

The paper you cite (and link to) is specifically focused on one aspect of the dustbowl, and asked if the drought could have been predicted. It would be a mistake to claim that this article is about the causes of the dust bowl. The author links to another article (which he is also one of the authors of) which states clearly:
....But the Dust Bowl drought was not meteorologically extreme by the standards of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Indeed the 1856-65 drought may have involved a more severe drop in precipitation. It was the combination of drought and poor land use practice that created the environmental disaster.
Much of the Plains had been plowed up in the decades before the 1930s as wheat cropping expanded west. Alas, while natural prairie grasses can survive a drought the wheat that was planted could not and, when the precipitation fell, it shriveled and died exposing bare earth to the winds. This was the ultimate cause of the wind erosion and terrible dust storms that hit the Plains in the 1930s.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dustbowl.shtml


Regardless, the action that would have had to have been taken to prevent the dust bowl even if we could have predicted the drought would have been to:

1. Change the weather
or
2. Take some measures to mitigate the damage done by unsustainable farming practices

deknow
 
#42 ·
Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports

>(with predictable long term results)

my take is that the authors state the associated weather pattern had not been observed in centuries, and never on this continent, and that the end result had not been predicted.

perhaps there were 'environmentalists' back then eschewing those practices, with the foresight of what might happen should this rare weather pattern emerge, predicting those long term results?

the poor land practice appears a lesson learned in hindsight, as some of the most painful lessons are.
 
#43 ·
Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports

the poor land practice appears a lesson learned in hindsight, as some of the most painful lessons are.
...I'm not sure what the point of this is. The paper you cited was also looking at weather patterns IN HINDSIGHT, and only suggests that perhaps IN HINDSIGHT, if we knew _more_ about weather patterns and how to predict them then than we do _now_, we could have taken some action to mitigate the impact of the drought.

Given that we _could_ have done something (in hindsight), it would have been along the lines of changing the unsustainable farming practices, not changing weather patterns.

In the long run, sustainable farming practices will fair better in cycles of drought. Also in the long run, usustainable farming practices will (eventually, by definition) prove to be unsustainable. The farming practices were going to cause a problem eventually no matter how good the weather was for a bunch of years.

deknow
 
#44 ·
Re: Free Download of all Key Bees & Pesticides Reports

yes, it was the combination of weather and poor practices.

yes, it could have been predicted if today's forecasting models had been available (the author's conclusion).

ok, you guys win, uncle.

back to the neonics. i guess the debate is whether or not the 'predictable' long term results to the environment and the bees are being borne out. i'm not sure i'm convinced that has been proven, but what do i know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top