Where is the actual report that supports the claim? I see some snips that support the OP's claim.
"The EPA’s Assistant Administrator Jim Jones noted that if nectar brought to a bee hive contains 25 parts per billion of imadacloprid, “there is a significant effect” on the hive’s vitality. It can lead to less honey, fewer bees and a “less robust hive.”"
"If" (underlined by me) is the HUGE point here. But they don't say where bees can get "nectar" with this high of a level of imadacloprid. Is this what they found when they feed imadacloprid laced syrup directly to bees in volumes that don't exist in the real world? There's no linked study and that makes my BS radar howl.
There's also some very clear pseudo journalism being shown. "Under pressure from Big Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration and the EPA have long resisted efforts to link neonics to diminishing pollinator populations."
This looks like agenda driven garbage being made to look like a news article. For the low information person it would appear to be a smoking gun. In reality it's propaganda for the low information to parrot without actually realizing they're being used.
Ninja, is not in the dictionary. Well played Ninja's, well played...
I would not believe a word of this. If the story were true, the mass media would have picked it up by now and reputable journalists would have reported it. The website is full of alarmist articles such as: Immigration Crisis, Economic Collapse, Middle Easterners exploiting border weakness and GMOs. Total garbage. Don't waste your time reading it.
It's not a total scam, it's just... hmmm... very selective information sharing.
Here's another article from a somewhat more reputable source, about the same EPA assessment: http://www.nbcnews.com/science/envir...-finds-n491371
Personalliberty's article is, of course, garbage. It takes the fact that in some crops, neonic concentrations in nectar is high enough to cause hive performance problems, to generalize that the pesticide is disastrous all of the time.
However, there is just as much garbage on the other extreme from our dear regulatory agencies. Just because imidacloprid stays under 25ppb in the crop's nectar, doesn't mean that the treatment itself is safe. Only 1,6% to 20% of neonic seed coatings get absorbed by the crops, the rest get leeched off into the environment, which results in 97% of neonics going into a hive come from wild flowers, and not the crop in question. Honestly it's rather baffling that they did not look at nectar concentrations beforehand, before even granting temporary homologations, as the crops with >25ppb imidacloprid concentrations should never have been allowed to be treated (be it with sprays, seed coatings, or whatever methods yield such high concentrations). But to jump from that assessment, and say that, by default, neonic treatments are fine if concentrations in the crop's nectar are below 25ppb, is completely unjustifiable.
from the actual report the epa released, sorry I forgot to copy the link, I'll see if i can find it again later
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress...3!OpenDocumentThe preliminary risk assessment identified a residue level for imidacloprid of 25 ppb, which sets a threshold above which effects on pollinator hives are likely to be seen, and at that level and below which effects are unlikely. These effects include decreases in pollinators as well as less honey produced. .
For example, data show that citrus and cotton may have residues of the pesticide in pollen and nectar above the threshold level. Other crops such as corn and leafy vegetables either do not produce nectar or have residues below the EPA identified level. Additional data is being generated on these and other crops to help EPA evaluate whether imidacloprid poses a risk to hives.
mike syracuse ny
Whatever you subsidize you get more of. Ronald Reagan