SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
European agency concludes controversial 'neonic' pesticides threaten bees
Controversial insecticides known as neonicotinoids pose a danger to wild bees and managed honey bees, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in Parma, Italy, said in a report released today. Bayer, a maker of so-called neonics, disputed EFSA's findings. But the report is likely to give a boost to those pushing for tighter European regulation of the chemicals.
"This report certainly strengthens the case for further restrictions on neonicotinoid use," entomologist Dave Goulson of the University of Sussex in Brighton, U.K., said in a statement. The European Commission last year proposed—but has not yet adopted—extending a partial ban on neonics to all field crops.
Related: Landmark Study: Honeybee Queens Severely Affected by Neonicotinoid Pesticides
Neonicotinoid Can Cause Brain Damage in Bats; Bumblebee Species Added to Endangered List
Extensive Study Concludes Neonicotinoid Pesticides Harm Bees
Lithium Chloride May Help in Fixing Bee Colony Collapse Disorder
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday March 04 2018, @02:32AM (2 children)
About. time.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday March 04 2018, @09:49AM (1 child)
Wait, we we're assured that it was the lithium chloride stuff as indicated in the last link in TFS.
So now they're telling us no, no We were wrong, we're going back to the original neonicotinoids story, or maybe the cell phone story.
It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 04 2018, @11:22PM
The /original/ original explanation (PDF) [callnetuk.com] seems likely enough to me, the other things are just confounding factors.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 04 2018, @04:56AM (8 children)
What is the news here? Have we just discovered that bees are insects, or that insecticides kill insects, or that neonicotinoids are insecticides?
If your insecticide doesn't kill bees, you probably bought the homeopathic stuff. It's some pretty exotic stuff if it kills anything you dislike while being harmless to bees.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 04 2018, @06:27AM (7 children)
The real news? Well, it isn't really news, at all. But, the real story went pretty much like this:
Bayer didn't want, and certainly didn't fund, any real testing of neonics. Bayer did it's own unsubstantiated testing, in Canada, in a rather remote location. Bayer jumped to conclusions over inconclusive testing, then applied for licenses based on that unsubstantiated bullshit. Gubbermint awarded the licenses, and Bayer went into overdrive marketing the stuff.
Precious few people know how little "testing" there was. Far fewer people understand the consequences of that lack of rigorous testing.
Long story short - there was money to be made.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday March 04 2018, @09:54AM (6 children)
Was the testing unsubstantiated or was it inconclusive? Are you certain there's a difference?.
And what by the way constitutes substantiated testing?
Where does one go to have their testing substantiated?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 04 2018, @02:24PM (4 children)
Substantiation can be done in house, if the "researcher" prefers to do it. That may or may not be adequate to satisfy academic authority, or whoever might be interested in the substantiation. In this case, no one checked the results - there was a rush to get to market, so the early favorable results were accepted. Those results were then forwarded to gubbermint, where the results were accepted again.
If you are interested in Bayer's study, you can get the PDF here - https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/bees_guelph.pdf [wordpress.com] It's nine pages of reading.
If, on the other hand, you would like to read an evaluation of that study, as well as the EPA's handling of it, this is a good read: https://grist.org/article/food-2010-12-10-leaked-documents-show-epa-allowed-bee-toxic-pesticide/ [grist.org] That evaluation is all on one web "page", but it's about half as long a read as the PDF.
So, in effect, there was no control group, or test group of bees. Bayer populated an area with canola crops, some treated, and some untreated, then populated that same area with several bee hives. For there to have been a test group, and a control group of bees, the two groups should have been separated by AT LEAST six miles distance - and preferably more.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 04 2018, @04:45PM
WTF are you talking about? The purpose of the study was to show there was no difference!
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday March 04 2018, @07:37PM (2 children)
So bees in both groups died at record levels?
There's nothing here about substantiation, or what that actually means.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 04 2018, @08:59PM (1 child)
That was my original point - the supposed safety of the product was never established, let alone substantiated. The EPA's own scientists disputed the purported findings of this "study". The whole thing just falls flat on it's face. Bayer pulled a fast one, and the head of the EPA let them do it.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday March 04 2018, @09:24PM
My father used his binoculars to look at a Soviet ship as it passed his ship. He saw a Soviet sailor looking back at him through binoculars too.
Dad put down his binocs, smiled and waved
Thee Free Worlds sworn enemy put down his own binoculars, looked furtively to each side, then stepped into a doorway then...
... smiled and waved back
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Tuesday March 06 2018, @02:17AM
I imagine it's as simple as hiring an unbiased 3rd party with a reputation in agriculture, and coordinating with bee-ologists in the regions you're planning on marketing the stuff in.
Whoops! But that would make sense, so I'm clearly not an MBA who would be placed in charge of something like that.
(Score: 1) by GreatOutdoors on Sunday March 04 2018, @06:12PM (5 children)
So you are telling me that a product that was designed to kill insects.... Actually works!?!?
Who would've thought?
I understand that technology is important at maintaining our food supply, but if we do kill off most of the bees in the world, we will starve. Period.
Yes, I did make a logical argument there. You should post a logical response.
(Score: 1) by GreatOutdoors on Sunday March 04 2018, @06:14PM
Aye... Should have previewed it. Was supposed to be "Whoa Really"
Yes, I did make a logical argument there. You should post a logical response.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 04 2018, @07:17PM (3 children)
Only about 1/6 of the crops need bees, and most of that is not high-volume stuff.
All of the major staples are wind pollinated, self-pollinated, or not in need of pollination at all.
To pick an example from each category: there will be no shortage of corn, tomatoes, or bananas.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Sunday March 04 2018, @07:40PM (2 children)
I can assure you tomatoes need pollination, or they won't set fruit.
https://www.buzzaboutbees.net/bees-pollinate-tomatoes.html [buzzaboutbees.net]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 04 2018, @11:26PM
Wasps and flies do the most to pollinate my tomatos. The few honeybees I see are always crawling on the mints and onions. Bumblebees don't usually touch the tomatos, but they seem to like the more open tomatillo flowers, and visit pretty much everything else.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @07:38AM
Tomatoes are grown in shipping containers on the northern shore of Alaska.
Yes, they need pollination. No, they don't need bees.
Put a potted tomato plant in your bathroom. Get tomatoes.