Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday March 04 2018, @02:18AM   Printer-friendly
from the time-to-act dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 04 2018, @04:56AM (8 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 04 2018, @04:56AM (#647479)

    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.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 04 2018, @06:27AM (7 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 04 2018, @06:27AM (#647520) Journal

    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.

    --
    “I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday March 04 2018, @09:54AM (6 children)

      by frojack (1554) on Sunday March 04 2018, @09:54AM (#647568) Journal

      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)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 04 2018, @02:24PM (#647620) Journal

        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.

        Prepared for Bayer by researchers at Canada’s University of Guelph, the study is a bit of a joke. The researchers created several 2.47-acre fields planted with clothianidin-treated seeds and matching untreated control fields, and placed hives at the center of each. Bees were allowed to roam freely. The problem is that bees forage in a range of 1.24 to 6.2 miles — meaning that the test bees most likely dined outside of the test fields. Worse, the test and control fields were planted as closely as 968 feet apart, meaning test and control bees had access to each other’s fields.

        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.

         

        --
        “I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 04 2018, @04:45PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 04 2018, @04:45PM (#647648)

          two groups should have been separated by AT LEAST six miles distance - and preferably more

          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)

          by frojack (1554) on Sunday March 04 2018, @07:37PM (#647702) Journal

          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)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 04 2018, @08:59PM (#647721) Journal

            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.

            --
            “I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
            • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday March 04 2018, @09:24PM

              by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Sunday March 04 2018, @09:24PM (#647730) Homepage Journal

              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

        by linkdude64 (5482) on Tuesday March 06 2018, @02:17AM (#648308)

        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.