Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

Neonicotinoids The Four Dog Defense

24K views 73 replies 23 participants last post by  JClark 
#1 ·
The Four Dog Defense

The Pesticide Lobbyists use a well-recognized series of lies and delaying tactics to dominate the debate in the Press and on Radio and Television. See if you recognise these techniques being used by people on this Forum.

The classic strategies are: Outright Denial; Smokescreen; Diversions; Sowing Doubt.
Of these 'sowing doubt' is by far the most common and the most effective. Entire teams of university academics are paid large sums to sow doubt in their 'science' papers, all the time, year after year.

Public Relations Specialists are also employed to fill the newspapers, TV chat shows and online forums/ Social media with a daily drip feed of Propaganda. Again, mostly sowing doubt although diversion and denial are also used. Online Forums are by far the most cost effective way to do this - you can bet your bottom dollar that there are paid professionals monitoring this Forum right now, ready to heap scorn, sarcasm and ridicule on anyone who dares to oppose the Poison industry.

Well known public figures are paid or persuaded to make public pronouncements on TV and in the Press, praising the poisoners and condemning objectors as 'hippies', 'conspiracy theorists' and 'back to the Stone Age' green idiots.

These techniques of Pyschological Warfare were perfected decades ago, when the corporations challenged the Science about the human health hazards of :

  • Lead,
  • Tobacco,
  • DDT
  • Abestos
  • Food additives like Aspartame, MSG, Bovine Growth Hormone etc.
  • PCBs

This is now a $billion dollar industry in every country; in fact, the food industry, the drug industry and the chemical industry could not function without these propaganda experts.

These underhand tactics are known as The Four Dog Defense.
The basic steps of the defence are:

1. My dog does not bite. OUTRIGHT DENIAL - THE BIG LIE
Dog Dog breed Canidae Mammal Facial expression


At first, the company denies that its product is harmful. This usually includes attempts to discredit scientific studies, or authors of studies, that show harm while the company generate its own fake-studies designed to show no harm.

NOTE: when Bayer license neonicotinoids in 1992 they stated that it could not possibly harm bees because the neonicotinoids NEVER emerged in pollen and nectar. That was an outright lie - 96% of peer-reviewed Science studies and 10,000,000 dead bee colonies prove the lie.


2. My dog bites, . . . but it didn't bite you. SMOKESCREEN - OBFUSCATION
Dog Mammal Vertebrate Dog breed Canidae


Pesticide industry concedes that the chemical 'may' be 'potentially' harmful, but insists that bees are not actually exposed to it 'in the real world'.
This argument works best if only the industry carries out tests or monitors for the chemical (they do).
It works even better if you use a 1940s testing methodology, which can never reveal chronic, long term effects
Absence of data is often used to argue that there has been no toxic exposure.

NOTE: Bayer and Syngenta admit that neonics are hyper-toxic to bees, but claim that ' in the field' bees never receive a fatal dose.

3. My dog bit you, but it didn't really hurt you. SPREADING DOUBT
Dog Mammal Vertebrate Canidae Dog breed


The Pesticide Industry admits that people or wildlife are exposed to the poison, but denies that the exposure caused harm.
Industry concedes that the chemical is harmful, but only at very high doses.
It kills bees, or people, but only under unrealistic test conditions, but not at the lower levels or real-world scenarios to which people or wildlife are actually exposed.

They focus on differences between humans and laboratory animals, alleging that harm such as cancer seen in animal experiments is not relevant to people.


Bayer, Syngenta, Monsanto have all used this argument.
In America, the EPA and various high profile beekeepers are the main spreaders of doubt.


4. My dog bit you, and hurt you, but it wasn't my fault. DIVERSION

Mammal Dog breed Canidae Dog Snout

Industry admits the chemical is harming bees, but tries to shift the blame onto other people to avoid regulation and liability.

Possible culprits are
  • improper use by farmers,
  • out-of-date farming practices, defective planting machines, dry weather
  • blame other toxic chemicals, bee-medications, or poor bee health
  • in the case of bees, the culprits are varroa mites, viruses, poor nutrition, and poor beekeeping.
 
See less See more
4
#3 ·
Are you a paid anti-neonic advocate? Seems to be all you post about.

Are you familiar at all w/ keeping bees?

From what I've seen here these four dogs are the conspiracy theories people like to declare when they are caught w/ their pants down. Look up the Stromnessbees character here and the citations he pushes for science.
 
#6 ·
Are you a paid anti-neonic advocate? Seems to be all you post about.
Maybe he is - I don't know. But almost for sure both sides have their own astroturfers on here. It would be pretty dumb of them to not wouldn't it? Take it all with a grain of salt IMHO.

Anyway Europe is graciously supplying us with a very large scale demonstration/experiment. Whatever the results are the scales should fall from our eyes within a year or two.
 
#7 ·
Ad hominem attack - shoot the messenger rather than deal with the facts.
I thought the 'rules' of this forum precluded personal attacks? Is the Moderator going to caution you about this insult?
Or is it only anyone who raises a genuine issue who gets warned to refrain from personal insults?

FYI I am a writer, broadcaster, teacher and author of books on conservation and the environment. I spent 20 years as an Environmental Educator (teacher) and Outdoor Education instructor; I have also kept bees as a hobby since 1994.

I had no problems with my bees from 1994 - 1998, I don't think I lost one hive to winter losses in that period, despite some cold winters; varroa arrived in 1998 and I treated it and controlled it with Bayer's pyrethroid strips. The bees did not die. I continued to get reasonable honey crops, even with varroa, from 1998 until around 2004 when neonics came in around here.
Since 2004 I began to lose colonies in winter and queens began to be superseded early in their first season, despite the fact that they laid good brood patterns. This reflects what has happened all over the UK in areas dominated by neonic treated canola. My bees are well looked after. They are well insulated in winter and always moved to sheltered, south facing slopes where they are protected from North, West and East winds. They are not genetically isolated and I deliberately move them to new areas where different stocks of drones are flying. I have also bought in queens from the Isle of Islay - 200 miles away in the Scottish Hebrides - an area unaffected by varroa.

I have never received a penny from any bee-campaign organisation; in fact there is no 'bee campaign organisation' with any paid staff as far as I know, neither in the UK nor in the USA.

I am old enough to have lived through four phases of the 'Pesticide Cycle' and I resent being lied to by big Chem and big AG.

They (scientists, universities, regulators, pesticide companies) told us DDT was safe from 1945 to 1989; it wasn't, it killed everything and it caused cancer. They banned it 40 years late.

In the 60s and 70s the same liars told us organochlorines (dieldrin, aldrin etc) were 'safe''; they lied, the organochlorines killed everything in the landscape; they were highly persistent in soil, water, body fat. They caused cancer. They were banned.

In the 70s through the 90s the same liars told us Organophosphates were 'safe'. They weren't. Derived from WWII Nerve Gas weapons they killed bees, insects, birds, trout, otters, frogs . . .you name it. The otter almost went extinct in the UK and is only just returning to its old rivers. Tens of thousands of sheep farmers in this country were poisoned by OPs used in sheep-dip; their lives were ruined - many developed Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinsons, early Onset Dementia - all the things which OPs were designed to create - since they were nerve gas weapons. The scientists lied, the pesticide companies lied, the regulators lied; the politicians lied - but vast profits were made. Then the truth came out - they were banned in Europe and the UK.

In the early 90s the same lying swine who gave us DDT, Organochlorines and Organophosphates - slipped neonics onto the market. They lied about their toxicity to bees - Bayer claimed they were not even toxic to bees because: 'the poison never emerges in the pollen or nectar' - that was a lie. They lied about the persistence in soil and water. they lied about sub-lethal poisoning and chronic, long term effects on colonies. The only field study ever conducted - the Cutler Dupree field study, was dismissed by the EPAs own scientists as 'not valid science'.

In the period that I have lived through, UK and European wildlife has been almost exterminated from most of our countryside. As a boy I fished for trout, sticklebacks, perch, roach, tench, pike in rivers, canals, ponds etc. All of that is gone. I lived in a big industrial town but even in the town centre we had flocks of sparrows, starlings, blackbirds; on the fringes we had skylarks, yellowhammers, linnets, black-caps - dozens of species of songbirds. Almost all of that is gone.

The same is true in America; many of you will know the writings of John Muir, Rachel Carson, Aldo Leopold - they describe the same inexorable retreat of Nature under the sustained assault of industrial farming, blanket use of pesticides, prophylactic use of pesticides - the spreading of incredibly dangerous neurotoxic poisons coast to coast, on every crop, all of the time.

Bees are just the 'canary in the coalmine' - but they happen to be 'my' bees in 'my' coalmine:)
I do not want to live in a countryside which is birdless, fishless, bee-less and butterfly-less. I campaign/ educate people about what is going on because I am lucky enough to have lived through a period when all that beauty still existed; it enriched our lives; it is worth fighting for.


Farming worked well for over a thousand years here in the UK without pesticides of any kind. Britain was the bread basket of the Roman Empire from AD 64 to AD 400 and after that it exported wheat and barley to the world for centuries. It is a fallacy that crops cannot be raised without pesticides. Organic farmers do it all the time. A world record yield of rice was achieved recently by an Indian farmer with no pesticides whatever- check out this article:

http://www.panna.org/blog/bumper-crops-india-no-ge-required

I am just someone who loves bees, loves Nature, loves to eat good food and drink good beer - I do not earn a penny from campaigning, I just want to be able to keep bees in a landscape which does not kill them, every year.
 
#10 ·
#13 ·
PLEASE NOTE THE RULES YOU AGREED TO WHEN YOU SIGNED UP TO THIS FORUM
Does the Moderator actually enforce these rules?

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use the Beesource Beekeeping Forums to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree to be civil and "observe with both friend and foe the ordinary rules of courtesy." You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by BeeSource.com.

Be civil. Personal attacks are never okay. We can disagree and debate a subject, which is fine. You'll find no "know-it-all's" here. No one on this forum is in a position where they can't be questioned or disagreed with in a civil manner.
 
#14 ·
> Where do you really live?

According to info he posted in May 2012 on another Beekeeping site, Borderbeeman lives in "
the Scottish Borders - Coldstream, on the river Tweed". You can read the rest here:
(deleted)

More on Coldstream, Scotland here:
(deleted)

Unfortunately, we share a common first name, Graham, :p but other than that we have no connection.
I haven't been here for a while, but once upon a time there was a decent level of debate. Now - here, at least - it seems to have degenerated into unwarranted, personal attacks with no serious discussion of the real issues.

What has a contributor's location, occupation or interests to do with you? And what have they to do with his cogent and incisive post about the obnoxious behaviour of corporations?

Unless you want someone poking around in your private life, I suggest discussing the argument, not the person.
 
#11 ·
Well, I have already told you that I live in the UK and that I am a retired teacher. This debate should not be about personalities; either people are telling the truth, backed by empirical science and real- eye-witness observation and experience - or they are selling propaganda. I truly wish someone would pay me because this takes up a lot of my time (not this forum but writing, giving interviews, making films etc) - all of which I do for the honor of resisting the chemical takeover of the world by the most poisonous corporations that have ever existed.

As I pointed out earlier, the ONLY people who stand to benefit from banning neonics are beekeepers - nobody else gives a ****. If you can show me ONE beekeeping organisation that is paying ONE person to campaign about neonics - I will be very grateful. The only legal suit brought against the EPA over the issue does feature 5 beekeepers who are suing for damages, but the case has been brought by the Centre for Food Safety. Nobody pays me one cent - I only wish they did. Still, I'll probably get a book out of it in a couple of years - not that p0ne makes money from books either - one merely gathers kudos.


Most of the people taking part here use a pseudonym for the simple reason that this Forum is just a small part of their life and they do not want the rest of their life invaded by what goes on here. Everytime I post here I am generally attacked personally by people who do not wish to debate facts, the science, the epidemiology or even the experience of beekeepers. They just attack the messenger. This is the classic 'ad hominem' strategy first noted by Aristotle.

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative ethnic action, ethnic minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is "not who makes the argument", but whether the argument is valid.
 
#12 ·
PLEASE NOTE THE RULES YOU AGREED TO WHEN YOU SIGNED UP TO THIS FORUM
Does the Moderator actually enforce these rules?

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use the Beesource Beekeeping Forums to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree to be civil and "observe with both friend and foe the ordinary rules of courtesy." You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by BeeSource.com.

Be civil. Personal attacks are never okay. We can disagree and debate a subject, which is fine. You'll find no "know-it-all's" here. No one on this forum is in a position where they can't be questioned or disagreed with in a civil manner.
 
#16 ·
Regarding Beesource rules, I simply linked to information Borderbeeman posted elsewhere on the internet. If he finds that information offensive or defamatory, one has to wonder why he posted it on the net in the first place!

If you post information on a public forum, it is foolish to expect that Google won't find it!

UPDATE: I see that Borderbeeman has gone back and edited his original post at Biobees to remove certain information. Anyone familiar with the expression about "closing the barn door after the horses have left"? Apparently he is not familiar with "archive.org", whose mission is to archive everything on the net.

Toodle pip!

:gh:
 
#17 ·
Regarding Beesource rules, I simply linked to information Borderbeeman posted elsewhere on the internet. If he finds that information offensive or defamatory, one has to wonder why he posted it on the net in the first place!

If you post information on a public forum, it is foolish to expect that Google won't find it!
And the point you so widely missed was - what have his location or interests to do with the subject of the post?
 
#21 ·
The thread title is "Neonicotinoids The Four Dog Defense" and the original post is liberally illustrated with dogs! What do dogs have to do with neonicotinoids, bees, or beekeeping? :scratch:


Perhaps you would be happier if I posted a photo of a rabid dog? Do you really think dogs are more relevant to beekeeping than LOCATION? Or is it that this thread is not really about beekeeping in the first place?

:ws:
 
#20 ·
Thank you Borderbeeman for the post, as you stated in the 4 methods, they seem to bee people here on beesourse, whom I've never heard of before questioning the information, usually that means you hit out of the park, baseball term, for people from across the pond.

I find it facinating when someone post info on here, which are standard tactics for many organizations, some come out questioning and saying "fear mongering" no I just see it as info to help disimination the stuff people do.

So Thanks
 
#23 ·
Regarding DDT:
http://www.wnd.com/2005/06/31095/

And, on another note, when you come here and slander a whole group of people (those who develop neo-nics) by accusing them of lying etc., you shouldn't expect to be taken seriously when you complain about the moderation of the forum. I'm all for people being held accountable, and I still have an open mind in regard to the safety of neo-nics, but I'm certainly no fan of reactionary, crusading sensationalizing.
 
#27 ·
The 4 dog defense claim does not hold water for me. it is defense. and you could put any response fro,m an innocent person being accused of something within it's framework. IN other words how woudl it look if someone "Defended" from a false accusation.

Denial- so what is an honest response if you didn't do it?
Obfuscation- simply out of being offended from being accused.
Spreading doubt- simply offering other ideas of what might have caused it
Diversion- same as above just being suspected as a lie for other reasons. You can confuse them or put the blame on others either way suspicion is removed form you. but either would be used as helping investigate the cause by an innocent parson.

Now the 4 dog defense is specifically intended to look at the responses of a guilty person trying to avoid blame.

There is much more that is evident beyond their defense in a guilty party. Yes these are methods a person will deny what they are guilty of. but they alone are not evidence of deceit by a far cry.
 
#28 ·
The Four Dog Defense is relevant because it is what Big Ag, Big Chem and Big Tobacco have been using since WWII. Bayer and Syngenta may call their trade 'crop protection' but the truth is that they are in the poison business. They design deadly toxins derived from nerve gas and manipulate the regulatory system and tests to get them on the market. They then employ every lie in the Playbook to keep them on the market for 20 years - and then reality catches up and they are banned (DDT, Dieldrin, Aldrin, Organophosphates, Endosulfan ,. . .)

This is not some academic, teatime debate. This is what these people do:

Slovenia bans neonicotinoids after massive bee deaths in Pomurje region

Wall Soil Wood Plant Siding

CLICK ON IMAGE TO SEE LARGE SIZE

Slovenian beehives in Pomurje after exposure to the neonicotinoid clothianidin applied as seed coating in corn, April 2011. The new EU prescription to put deflectors on pneumatic sowing machines to avoid dust drift of the poison did not protect these bees. The use of clothianidin is also allowed in the Netherlands under the names Poncho Rood for corn and Poncho Beta for sugar beet.

Treated Corn Seed and Pesticide Banned as Bee Deaths Continue
Ljubljana, 28 April 2011 (STA) - The government of Slovenia issued a temporary ban Thursday on seeds treated with neonicotinoid pesticides which have caused massive bee deaths in the north-eastern Pomurje region in the recent weeks. The use of Biscay, a pesticide, will also be limited.

The decision comes after beekeepers in the heavily agricultural region Pomurje reported massive bee deaths. About 2,500 beehives kept by 45 beekeepers in Pomurje have been affected, Agriculture Minister Gregor Zidan told the press after the cabinet session.

Lab analyses showed that in at least seven cases the most likely culprit was clothianidin, an insecticide used to treat corn seed. Samples of the treated corn have been sent to German labs to verify whether the corn had been treated properly.

Clothianidin had been banned by the previous government in 2008 following a similar outbreak of bee deaths, but the ban was revoked by Zidan's predecessor Milan Pogacnik based on an analysis by the Chemistry Institute.

Zidan said he would demand explanations on why the ban was revoked and then decide whether to take action against his predecessor.

There is no data on how much seed corn has been treated with clothianidin. Joze Ilersic, the head of the Phytosanitary Administration, said than in 2008 a third of the seed corn had been treated with insecticide.

Aside from a temporary ban on corn seed treated with neonicotinoids, the government decided to disallow the use of Biscay (based on thiacloprid - another neonicotinoid) for the treatment of canola during blooming due to its possible synergy effects with other pesticides.

Both clothianidin and thiacloprid are produced by Bayer Cropscience whose best selling product is the neonicotinoid imidacloprid, also linked to honeybee decline.
 
#31 ·
Why oh why am I doing this to myself? :pinch:

About 2,500 beehives kept by 45 beekeepers in Pomurje have been affected, Agriculture Minister Gregor Zidan told the press after the cabinet session.

Lab analyses showed that in at least seven cases the most likely culprit was clothianidin
So in 0.28% of cases the likely culprit was clothianidin?

borderbee, have you read Randy Oliver's site at all? http://scientificbeekeeping.com/

he visited the heart of the U.S. corn and soybean growing area looking for bee kills and health issues from planting dust: http://scientificbeekeeping.com/the-extinction-of-the-honey-bee/
 
#45 ·
it is quite clear from the tone and stance that you take that:

You have NO interest in discussing or debating these issues in a civil manner
Your only role here is to attack, intimidate, harass, threaten and abuse
Your posts do not address the CONTENT of the argument

The only conclusion, from your appalling behaviour is that you are the lead attack dog representing the industry on here, and your role is to:

Suppress reasonable discussion and debate
Threaten, harass and bully anyone who takes an anti-neonics position
Drive them from the arena of debate by persistent personal attacks

It is also clear that you have the support of Mr Barry Birkey, since he has done nothing about correcting your behavior and has refused to take down your offensive posts.

What does that tell you about Mr Birkey's loyalties?
what does that tell you about WHO is controlling this Forum?
 
#46 ·
So the 'Moderator' - the alleged 'creator' of this Forum chooses to join in the personal attacks and intimidation as well?

No attempt to discuss the issues
No attempt to discuss the facts
No attempt to set an example for other users in terms of decent behavior and reasonable debate

Your posting says more about you and the moral tone (or lack of it) which you are responsible for on this Forum than I could ever say.

No point in REPORTING this to the 'Moderator' is there Mr Birkey?

what does one do when those who are supposedly 'The Rule Makers' - refuse to conform to the rules which they themselves are happy to break?

Don't worry, its a rhetorical question.

I don't expect an answer from you.
or reasonable debate
or fairness
or even a sense of honor
 
#49 ·
Jonathan, you are not paying attention.
The four Dog Defense is now The Five Dog Defense.
It was decided that a FIFTH strategy of the poison manufacturers and industry trolls was:

SUPPRESSION OF DISSENT

It's odd that you forgot that because that is your primary role in the various Forums where you ply your trade.

As usual, you make no attempt to engage in real discussion.
You make no attempt to address the many peer-reviewed science studies which prove to anyone with a free mind (i.e. a mind uncontaminated by pesticide dollars) that neonics are a primary cause of bee deaths.
Your veiled slur on my friendship, or not with Stromness Bees merely highlights the fact that your techniques, which you have used for years on the Scottish Beekeeping Forum, are:

Defamation
Innuendo
Slurs and personal attacks
Distraction
Smokescreen

However, your main role is undoubtedly SUPPRESSION OF FREE SPEECH.
That is what you are paid to do.
So I expect nothing better from you.

By the way, you are failing.
Truth will out.
Truth IS out.
27 countries just banned your favourite poisons, despite all your efforts.
I hope you don't get paid by results, because European Science just crushed your gonads in a vice.
 
#61 ·
Jonathan, you are not paying attention.
The four Dog Defense is now The Five Dog Defense.
It was decided that a FIFTH strategy of the poison manufacturers and industry trolls was:

SUPPRESSION OF DISSENT
Hmmm, "suppression of dissent", sounds evil. I posted a very civilized comment/question at Borderbeeman's blog, here:

http://friendsofthebees.wordpress.com/

My comment is "Awaiting Moderation". Would anyone care to guess how long it might be before my comment actually get published?

I invite others to visit the link above. :D
 
#52 ·
I'm a proponent of the 3D's: deflect, delay, deny.

Unfortunately, it's impossible to design an experiment that proves cause and effect in field trials because you can't control for all of the other possible environmental factors.

So while we all pretty much know that insecticides kill insects, we also understand that you need proof to force a ban on a product.

It would be 'unjust' to do otherwise.

However, you can prove translocation in field trials!

So, we know that neonic contaminated talc is blowing across fields and the product is going off target.

Yes, you can ban a product for going off-target...

Eventhough you were never able to prove that it killed bees.
 
#54 ·
A key defense used by the Pesticide Lobbyists on this Forum is that:
"The science is not convincing; the science does not prove anything"

The European decision came only after the European Science Agency had considered the issue for over a year, and then after the Expert Science Panel of the European Food Safety Agency had analysed over a hundred peer-reviewed scientific studies. These people are at the top of their game, globally.
Take a look at the Expert Panel that advised the European Commission to ban neonics.

THE SCIENTISTS WHO BANNED NEONICS IN EUROPE

EFSA's expert panel considered all the peer-reviewed evidence on bee deaths and neonicotinoid pesticides: over 50 peer-reviewed studies. they issued three Risk Assessments on Imidacloprid, Clothianidin and Thiamethoxam. They advised the Commission that there were unacceptable data gaps in the risk assessments; there was strong evidence that neonicotinoids affect bees and pollinators, and there is a high degree of 'scientific uncertainty'. They concluded: the Precautionary Principle must be invoked, for a moratorium until the pesticide industry could prove its products do NOT harm bees - which it has so far failed to.

This panel included leading European experts:
Dr. Alf Aagaard Denmark - Eco Toxicologist
Dr Theodorus C.M. Brock - Aquatic Ecology, University of Nijmegen,
Prof Ettore Capri : Chemistry, Biochemistry and Ecology, Milan
Dr Sabine Duquesne Ecological risk assessment of pesticides
Prof. Metka FILIPIČ Professor University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Pharmacy
Prof. Antonio F. Hernández‐Jerez Epidemiology and Clinical Investigation
Dr. Karen Ildico Hirsch‐Ernst - Toxicology expert
Dr. Susanne Hougaard Bennekou Toxicology risk assessment of pesticides
Dr. Michael Klein - Pesticides & Environmental fate modelling
Dr. Thomas Kuhl expert on risk assessment for pesticides
Prof. Ryszard Laskowski Ecotoxicology & Risk Assessment
PD Dr. Matthias Lies Ecological systems & Environmental risk assessment of chemicals
Dr. Alberto Mantovani risk assessment of endocrine active substances
Prof. Colin Douglas Ockleford
Dr. Bernadette Christine Ossendorp pesticide residues
Dr. Daniel Pickford -ecotoxicology and endocrine disruption
Prof Robert Smith Environmental risk assessment of pesticides
Prof. José Paulo SOUSA assessment of PPPs towards soil organism
Prof. Ingvar Sundh Microbial ecology research in natural and managed environments
Dr Aaldrik Tiktak Mathematical models of pesticide fate
Ir. Ton van der Linden soil chemistry, soil microbiology, toxicology

The Commission evidently trusts the Scientific competence.
 
#55 ·
jonathan:

I recently attended an online conference where representatives from the companies producing neonic coated seeds acknowledged that they are working on new formulations to fix the seed coat abrasion problem.

So, there's no denial by anyone of the contaminated talc problem.

There's no need for 4 or even five dogs here.

The translocation experimental design is the only dog needed, and it hunts!

Here's where it al started:

GREATTI M., SABATINI A. G., BARBATTINI R., ROSSI S., STRAVISI
A., 2003.- Risk of environmental contamination by the
active ingredient imidacloprid used for corn seed dressing.
Preliminary results.- Bulletin of Insectology, 56: 69-72.
 
#56 ·
Fixing the planter dust issue will not stop neonics killing bees. The planter dust is full of very high concentrations of the raw poison - it is many thousands of times above the lethal dose by ingestion - so it kills on direct contact. If there is NO planter dust, that poison will be absorbed into the living structure of the entire plant and will emerge in the flowers, pollen and nectar. Dozens of studies have proven that the level at which canola and corn are contaminated - in the nectar and pollen (corn relevance is pollen only) - that dose is way above what kills bees in the lab.

So, a 'good' planting of corn or canola, in which there is no mass bee-kill at time of planting, merely sets the scene for colony deaths later in the year - usually in the winter, when the bees have collected and stored pollen and nectar that is poisoned by minute amounts of neonics in the ppb range.

The planter dust issue is a distraction.

How would you like your bees killed?

10,000 hives in a single day - as happened with planter dust in the Rhineland in 2010

or

1 million colonies dying over the winter after exposure to sunflower pollen and nectar (France 1994)

You could possibly opt for one or the other, but the result is exactly the same - fast death or slow death - the colonies end up dead.
 
#57 ·
Yes, I have read that paper.
There is certainly room for improvement with regard to the escape of planter dust and beekeepers should be compensated for that.
As far as I know this issue is largely confined to corn/maize drilling.

The Krupke et al paper (2012) discussed this.

Multiple Routes of Pesticide Exposure for Honey Bees Living Near Agricultural Fields
 
#58 ·
Did you read Randy Olivers article, where he points out it only seems to be an issue under high humidity??? My hives are next to corn, and i have never noticed a problem, but in fairness most of it is no till, which has much less planter dust.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top