Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

Why knowingly catalyze a bee apocalypse?

82K views 419 replies 48 participants last post by  Tim Ives 
#1 ·
Forgive me for my ignorance, but I believe playing the devil's advocate is important before committing oneself to any cause, despite being a beekeeper myself. I'm wondering why the EPA continuously approves neonicotinoids despite implications that they are a major cause of Colony Collapse Disorder. We cannot assume everyone in the agency is stupid or corrupt, especially when they are so concerned with the protection of the environment and wildlife.

What's yall's take on as to why the approval of the insecticide recurs?
 
#6 ·
A flawed process, especially one that approves large numbers of pesticides, may as well be thought of as a catalyst.

The flaw isn't in the science.

The flaw in the EPA pesticide process has been identified as the individual managers who are each responsible for a pesticide product and it's approval.

They're the 'catalyst'.
 
#24 · (Edited)
CCD seems to have largely burned itself out for now.
One reason "CCD" has burned itself out, was media fizz.

The coming bee apocalypse was hyped up to such proportions it could not be maintained.

Figures of 30%, 50%, and higher losses each year were bandied around, we were told we were on the edge of a crevasse, the impression was given that bees were on the brink of extinction. When public expectations were raised so high ( I hardly know any non beekeeper who did not think bees were about to go extinct), but the reality is that year after year bee numbers have been increasing, it becomes impossible to maintain the illusion.

Pesticides kill bees, yes. The reason the EPA continuously approves them is because pesticides are a fact of life in the modern world. The planet could not be fed without them, it's that simple. That neonicitiniods, used correctly, are more harmful to bees than the insecticides of the past, may yet turn out to be one of the biggest urban myths of the early 21st century.

Or, might not. But basing it's decisions on current main stream research not media hype, the EPA is doing what it believes is the best option. The recent banning of some use of neonicitiniods in Europe, was based primarily on public hysteria and pressure groups, rather than proper research.
 
#16 ·
The consensus is that it's caused by a suppression of the Honeybee's immune system.

In the U.S., it's believed to be caused by a strain of IAPV.

I've tracked it down to Ago 2 knockdown by a sequence carried in the 'zero' strain of IAPV.

However, we now know that neonics can suppress the Honeybee's immunity to viruses.
 
#19 ·
There is not a direct cause and effect connection between the use of neonics and CCD, and I believe there is some discussion about the reality of CCD itself. After all, beekeepers lose hives all the time for a variety of reasons, and the introduction of mites and small hive beetles have caused the loss of a vast number of hives, sometimes in a way that is very difficult to pinpoint. PMS can take what appears to be a very healthy hive and covert it to a hive full of stores but empty of bees in early winter, and a poor pollen season in August can do much the same thing.

Feral hives seem to be increasing in my area, so the bees are adapting to mites, but we shall see what they do with small hive beetles as they are just showing up. However, some large operations are still reporting large losses (50% and up), but from what I've read, they seem to be the same ones fairly often and are large scale migratory keepers, at least the ones that show up in the news, and that's a different thing than what I do. Moving hives has to be stressful to the bees, and proper protein nutrition can be a real problem on things like almonds and blueberries, again this can cause serious losses in winter if the proper protein supplements are not given at the right time.

Now, the EPA approval procedure, if that's what you want to call it, for neonics was terrible, and they are being used as seed treatment to "enhance stand density" rather than being applied for control of a specific pest. I would not personally permit broadcast use of any pesticide as a preventive in the absence of a specific target -- I'm not a farmer, I don't make any money off them or the farm products, and they are POISONOUS, not innocuous substances. Bayer also appears to have been pretty sloppy in their environmental assessments and we have gotten some nasty surprises in terms of soil buildup and persistence that were "unanticipated" (meaning Bayer didn't look very closely).

Peter
 
#20 ·
Neonics have all but stopped random spraying of pesticides, Thats a GOOD thing, not bad. Of course neonics are bad for bees, so is too much water, or too much cold, or gasoline... The key is application. I live in the middle the most hevily Noenics in the world... My hives are in good shape.... No uneplained losees, and yeilds that are well withing normal.
 
#23 ·
I suspect the whole plight of pollinators in general is more complicated than a single insecticide or single vector. Be careful of the fallacy in reasoning called the 'fallacy of the single cause.' :)

I do, however, advocate proper use of neonics according to the label.
 
#25 ·
One might add that we will have proof one way or the other very shortly The EU has banned them so we should see european losses disappear.

What will probably happen is no real change, then they will claim its the Neonics still in the soil.

A quick look at teh map of applied pesticides compared to anual losses should show you answers real quick. Areas that have little to no farming should show up as refuges for bees, and areas like mine should be wastelands.
 
#26 ·
The neonics make a convenient target. Unfortunately, science showing neonics are worse for bees than other pesticides isn't there. I worry that if the populace rallies to ban the neonics one of the following will occur: 1) a substitute for the neonics will be found that is bad for bees too; 2) the population that thought they were saving bees by participating in the drive to ban neonics will become disappointed and lose interest in bee and other environmental issues; or 3) if the bans do work as advertised, victory will be declared despite numerous other issues effecting honey bees and native pollinators.

The planter dust issue needs to be solved, yesterday!

But I think the focus on neonics ignores the elephant in the room which I see as an increasing human population. And a lack of personal responsibility for demanding perfection at all costs in the products we buy. "but these flowers came from the local big box store - they're gorgeous - what do you mean they're bad for my bees?"
 
#27 · (Edited)
One of the issues that has come up with how the EPA tests and approves new pesticides is that Honeybees do not make an ideal proxy for native pollinators in pesticide testing.

It seems that Honeybees can detoxify pesticides more readily than other native pollinators, and as a result, while the application doses might not harm Honeybees, they may exceed the LD50 for other native bees/pollinators.

Strangely, in a recent study by di Prisco, et al., neonics resulted in a higher viral load than the organophosphates that were tested. So, there is evidence that neonics can be more harmful than another pesticide class.
 
#31 ·
It is real easy to blame farmers for pesticide use. So maybe it just might be of interest to see figures on who actually uses a few pesticides.

2,4 D -Ag use is 19% of the total use in the US.
Carbaryl -Ag use is 0% of the total use in the US.
Pendimethalin -Ag use is 54% of the total use in the US.
Trifluralin -Ag use is 75% of the total use in the US.
Malathion -Ag use is 0% of the total use in the US.
Roundup -Ag use is 90% of the total use in the US.

Soooo, if Ag uses are far from the total US use of pesticides who else uses them? The non Ag uses are split nearly dead equally between home owners and non Ag businesses or government. Home owner uses are primarily lawn and garden. The non Ag business and government uses range from golf courses to lawn care at business sites to railroad and public road right of ways, cities spraying mosquitos, etc.

You might notice I included roundup on this list and that is one case where most of the use is Ag use. Roundup is by far the safest chemical on this list and the most environmentally friendly chemical on this list. The surfactants in the roundup formulation are more toxic than the active ingredient glyphosate. If you do not know what a surfactant is think dishwashing liquid. Glyphosate is also, for practical purposes, instantly bound by soil particles thus preventing migration of this chemical. It is then rapidly degraded to carbon dioxide and phosphate fertilizer by the microbes in the soil. Thus there is zero concern about contamination of aquifers or streams unless you spray directly into the stream.

Anyone who thinks the US EPA is not doing a diligent job of protecting the consumer and environment from pesticides obviously has zero clue about what the pesticide registration process involves. Here is a link to a very abbreviated list of the registration requirements:

http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/regulating/data_requirements.htm

When I left the field in 1986 it was estimated to take about $100 million worth of lab studies to obtain a provisional registration for any new pesticide molecule. Once you have a provisional registration you can expect to spend at least $10 million per year for the life of the pesticide. That kind of expense buys a lot of lab studies. Many hundreds of them. It has not gotten cheaper since 1986. Also, periodically the EPA requires reregistration of all pesticides. During that reregistration process a fair number of original studies are thrown out by the agency and must be repeated because science and understanding of the environment has progressed since the original registration.

You are far, far more likely to suffer adverse health effects from pills you get from your doctor than from any pesticide exposure providing the label directions on that pesticide are followed. The potential fines and jail time for not following label directions are enough to keep the Ag users very honest. Homeowners on the other hand cheat all the time. Even bee keepers cheat. I see repeated talk in here about use of oxalic acid for instance. That is illegal in the US and could result in either massive fines or jail time or even both.

The neonic lawsuit against EPA was mentioned earlier. Anyone who knows the registration process and US law knows that this law suit is going no place including I would hope those who filed the suit. Such suits are filed fairly often and never win. So why do they get filed? Simple. There is no intent to win them. They are simply part of the propaganda needed to help with fund raising. They cost very little to file and are very effective at inducing people to donate lots of money.
 
#33 ·
Admitting that one has a problem is the first step towards addressing that problem. Misdiagnosis isn't something a Doctor aught to be doing, is it?

When a patient comes to you w/ a problem, what's the first step? Or maybe you aren't that kind of Doctor.
 
#34 ·
It really makes me smile to see post like these. A year ago it was all negative and ban this and that... in a short time I have actually seen people standing up for common sense instead of jumping on the evil corporation bandwagon without really thinking it out. Makes me realize chicken little may get his butt kicked...:)
 
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