Video lecture about risk profile of neonicotinoid insecticides [Archive]

Stromnessbees

25-02-2011, 01:06 PM

Well, I know I have gone awol for a while, but for this thread it seems worthwhile to creep out of the woodwork.

For those who don't have the patience to watch the whole video I have copied the page with the conclusions (from 25:41):

Conclusions:

The mode of action of neonicotinoid insecticides derives from almost complete and virtually irreversible blockage of postsynaptic nicotinic AcetylCholine-Receptors (nAChRs) in the central nervous system of insects.

The toxicity of neonicotinoids to arthropods is reinforced by exposure time. Their dose : response characteristics are strikingly similar to those of carcinogens. Thus, there may not be a safe level of exposure.

Imidacloprid is persistent and mobile in soil and prone to leaching.

The contamination of surface water with imidacloprid is massive in some parts of Holland.

Of the 13 components of agricultural intensification, only the use of insecticides and fungicides had consistent negative effects on biodiversity (wild plant, carabid and bird species).

Surface water contamination with Imidacloprid correlates with reduced Diptera (Flies and Midges) abundance.

Strong decline of butterflies since the introduction of neonicotinoid insecticides.

Many invertebrate-dependent bird species (in very different habitats) are declining, some are now extinct.

As Gavin points out, the quality of the clip is poor, so if you want to just watch the essence of the talk rather than an extended chemistry lession, I recommend listening from 12:20, when he gets to the biological implications for insects and birds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4RIDWuCN-A

So, as there 'may not be a safe level of exposure' to neonicotinoids, what are we going to do?

KMBonn

25-02-2011, 07:39 PM

Here's a pdf given by Dr. Tennekes: http://www.farmlandbirds.net/sites/default/files/TENNEKES_VORTRAG_16.02.2011_HD_2_%20English_0.pdf

Greetings, Klaus

Eric McArthur

25-02-2011, 08:57 PM

Stromness wrote:
* The toxicity of neonicotinoids to arthropods is reinforced by exposure time. Their dose : response characteristics are strikingly similar to those of carcinogens. Thus, there may not be a safe level of exposure.
* Imidacloprid is persistent and mobile in soil and prone to leaching.
I recommend listening from 12:20, when he gets to the biological implications for insects and birds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4RIDWuCN-A
So, as there 'may not be a safe level of exposure' to neonicotinoids, what are we going do?
.................................................. ......................
Hi Doris
What to do? Ban the offending material! As I have been advocating for many years!
Chris Connolly’s pending important research should highlight just how much Scotand’s bee are at risk for the burgeoning use of these toxic systemic neonicotinoids

Eric

Jon

25-02-2011, 10:24 PM

What to do? Ban the offending material! As I have been advocating for many years!

Just remember that if you ban neonics you are in effect voting to bring back organophosphates, carbamates and pyrethroids.

Doris and Eric. I would be interested in hearing why you think it is better to use these older pesticides rather than neonicotinoid pesticides. we live in the real world and pesticide use will continue even if neonicotinoids are banned. Neonicotinoids are also known to be much less harmful to one important species - the human. Pity the 3rd world agricultural workers who are obliged to spray much more dangerous chemicals on crops and also over themselves in the process.

It's easy to get on your high horse if you don't have to live with the consequences like some others have to.

So, as there 'may not be a safe level of exposure' to neonicotinoids, what are we going to do?

Tennekes is just one opinion and it is by no means mainstream.
There is an overwhelming body of evidence which suggests that neonicotinoids are not particularily harmful to bees and other pollinating insects.
There is not a single field study carried out anywhere in the world which has demonstrated that neonicotinoid pesticides are harmful to bees - and by God a lot of people have been motivated to try and demonstrate this.
We wait on the C Connolly study with bated breath, but the design looks to be much less rigorous than many which have been carried out before, so it is debatable what it might show. As Roy Keane said when he walked out of Ireland's doomed 2002 world cup campaign. Fail to prepare, prepare to fail!

gavin

26-02-2011, 01:12 PM

Hi Doris

Lovely to see you back! I hope that you stick around. There is a lot in that presentation to discuss.

This business about 'virtually irreversible blockage of postsynaptic nicotinic AcetylCholine-Receptors (nAChRs) in the central nervous system of insects.'

I had a look last night at the neurobiology literature. It is packed with jargon but if you persist it makes sense. Here is one paper I found that comments on the binding of imidacloprid to receptors, and it seems that you can wash off the imidacloprid within 20 mins with saline. That doesn't seem to square with Tennekes' comments apparently based on a Bayer document. I thought that we weren't meant to believe Bayer propaganda anyway!

Buckingham et al 'Imidacloprid actions on insect neuronal acetylcholine receptors' (http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/reprint/200/21/2685.pdf)

best wishes

Gavin

Eric McArthur

26-02-2011, 04:48 PM

Hi All
The current stramasch which is surrounding Chris Connolly’s pending research seems to be now bordering on the lunatic – the correspondence which has been generated and distributed beggars belief.
The crux of the issue is that continuing research requires to be done to prove/disprove the current fears/controversy relative to the neonicotinoids. This proposed work is hopefully only one piece in a very adversarial issue which has to be resolved –lest the worst fears of the anti neonicotinoid lobby be realised.
The funding is available let’s get behind the work in hand and stop this stupid bickering which to all intents and purposes is a mindless personality conflict – one sided as far as the evidence points!

Eric

AlexJ

26-02-2011, 11:50 PM

All,

I found the Pdf presentation a bit of a shotgun approach to the subject in trying to link a range of adverse affects on biodiversity to the use of neonicitinoids over the past two decades. While I don’t deny for a minute that there isn’t evidence indicating neonicitinoids have an affect on a range of species, I do suggest it’s too simplistic to decree that these particular pesticides are wholly responsible for the demise of a wide range of our animal life.

I’ve lived and worked on the Western Isles and it wasn’t neonicitinoids that killed of Corncrakes it was modern crofting/agricultural methods of crop harvesting allied to introduced mink and hedgehogs. In a similar vein, large scale and expanding monoculture allied to intensive farming methods which is tied into the removal of hedgerows and loss of habitat will have had a fundamental affect on all indigenous bird species.

While it’s fairly obvious that insecticides and fungicides are likely to have a negative affect on biodiversity, in part isn’t that exactly their purpose? Why are we surprised that that they will have a dilatory effect on part of an ecosystem. We’ve been having an adverse effect on our environment since time immemorial – did not the ancient Greeks use sulphur as a pesticide?

If we accept neonicitinoid use at all, it is the management and ancillary effects of their use that we should focus on. From that we can decide on the overall efficacy of their use and if science, need for food production and hopefully ethics dictates otherwise – then ban them. However, I’ve yet to see anything posted on the SBAi site that, as yet, convinces me that these systemic pesticides should be banned outright.

In a previous thread I noted the lack of hard evidence presented by those who want neonicitinoids banned immediately. Alternatively,

‘In a meta-analysis of fourteen published studies of the effects of imidacloprid on honey bees under laboratory and semi-field conditions that comprised measurements on 7073 adult individuals and 36 colonies, fitted dose–response relationships estimate that trace dietary imidacloprid at field-realistic levels in nectar will have no lethal effects, but will reduce expected performance in honey bees by between 6 and 20%.’

A meta-analysis of experiments testing the effects of a neonicotinoid insecticide (imidacloprid) on honey bees. James E. Cresswell, Ecotoxicology Nov 2010

Not far from Holland,

‘Despite a high percentage of hives containing residues of imidacloprid [e.g. in France, more than one hive in two has residues of imidacloprid and its metabolite 6-chloronicotinic acid in the pollen, 30% in honey and 26% in bees (Chauzat et al., 2009)], the level of exposure is sub-lethal with no obvious effect on mortality (Schmuck et al., 2001; Nguyen et al., 2009).’

Interactions between Nosema microspores and a neonicotinoid weaken honeybees (Apis mellifera) Cédric Alaux, et al Environmental Microbiology (2009)

What the study does note, perhaps not surprisingly is the synergistic link between Nosema and imidclororid. However in Greece, ‘another interesting finding was that crop protection insecticides were not detected in honey in the majority of the cases. To the contrary, the most important source of contamination proved to be the acaricide coumaphos, which is used by apiculturists for the treatment of Varroa mite.’

Bee Honey as an Environmental Bioindicator of Pesticides’ Occurrence in Six Agricultural Areas of Greece. George Balayiannis & Panos Balayiannis Arch Environ Contam Toxicol (2008) 55:462–470.

Perhaps if links to the data/studies referred to in the video presentation and attachment were provided a more meaningful debate could develop. As far as the immediate banning of neonicitinoids is concerned the evidence, as presented in this thread, is certainly not one sided.

Alex

gavin

27-02-2011, 01:37 PM

Thanks Alex, interesting comments. Here are some more of mine:

Almost any biological effect of a compound increases with increased exposure time. There is nothing special about this. As I indicated before, imidacloprid does *not* bind irreversibly to acetylcholine receptors according to the literature, which makes his comparisons to carcinogens entirely spurious.

The declines in biodiversity are huge issues and, as Alex pointed out, complex. Man is stressing the natural environment in many different ways. Pesticides could easily be part of that, but if we are to understand that it requires high quality unbiased science. It seems to me that Dr Tennekes has come to a personal conclusion that he knows the main reason for the losses he so rightly deplores, and is trying to marshal arguments that support that case. If what he does obscures the fact that the real reasons are complex and multifactorial, then he is doing everyone a disservice.

Log-log plots. These are common devices to get straight lines out of biological data. I use them myself for other topics. There is no link to the action of carcinogens from that analysis.

Ground water concerns: absolutely! There were concerns expressed in the US about groundwater contamination by imidacloprid, in New York I think. I remember commenting on them on Bee-L. Regulators that allow uses of toxins at such a rate as to contaminate their environment so completely are failing in their duty of care. You just shouldn't be allowed to use such compounds on such a scale on golf courses or whatever was contaminating groundwater in the US and in the Netherlands, in commercial bulb farming or potato growing or wherever the contamination is coming from.

Surface water in the Netherlands. Why is Dr Tennekes citing 5,000 times the MTR in some samples - is that real? The map is scary enough, but that only shows 'over five times' the MTR. The MTR is 13 ppb, so is already close to the level which could harm wildlife, and five times that level indicates a serious problem that needs sorting right now!

So my interpretation of this is that there sounds like there is a real underlying problem, maybe a really serious one, but unfortunately Dr Tennekes' intervention is not helping. Blow the whistle by all means, but don't do it by misunderstanding the issue and invoking spurious arguments.

Rosie

27-02-2011, 04:25 PM

[QUOTE=gavin;4220] Why is Dr Tennekes citing 5,000 times the MTR in some samples - is that real? The map is scary enough, but that only shows 'over five times' the MTR. The MTR is 13 ppb, so is already close to the level which could harm wildlife, and five times that level indicates a serious problem that needs sorting right now![QUOTE]

I did not sit through the whole video but could the comma in the 5,000 have been the equivalent of our decimal point?

Rosie

gavin

27-02-2011, 05:19 PM

Hi Steve

Good idea but not correct I'm afraid. The axis on the graph didn't use a comma. Three examples were cited showing 'factor above MTR' of around 700, 1700 and 4700. In the video he said 'nearly five thousand times' at one named location. It sounds like that level of contamination may be real, but I wonder what kind of surface water was involved.

It seems to be the case that, because imidacloprid has low mammalian toxicity, it has been overused. I'm assuming that the Dutch Water Boards were conducting their analyses properly, but it would be good to know more.

all the best

Gavin

Eric McArthur

27-02-2011, 06:27 PM

Hi All
There seems to be a very strong pro pesticide opinion in this thread.

Eric

Rosie/Steve wrote:
I did not sit through the whole video but could the comma in the 5,000 have been the equivalent of our decimal point?
Gavin wrote:
It sounds like that level of contamination may be real, but I wonder what kind of surface water was involved.
Eric wrote:
Surface water is surface water and as such it eventually discharges into the network of waterways.

Eric wrote:
Rachel Carson was the first to go into print about the burgeoning, destructive situation relative to pesticides – focusing in DDT. She came under vicious attack from vested interest in the pesticide industry; continuous attempts were made to destroy her and her credibility but ultimately DDT was banned

Is Imidacloprid Harmful to Bees?
by Eric Zeissstoff

R. Schmuck in his report describes the following analysis results. Residues of 10 ppb at a soil
depth of up to 10 cm correspond to a chemical burden of 45g Imidacloprid per hectare.
"The evidence indicates that over a period of 6 years a relatively low level of Imidacloprid will
be achieved [in the soil], namely 0.030 mg/kg". This corresponds to a level of 60g/ hectare.
The persistent Imidacloprid soil residues of 45-60g/hectare have the ironic consequence for
agriculture, that it is no longer necessary to apply new dressings of the pesticide to oilseed
rape, since there is enough already in the soil from previous years to kill all earthworms and
invertebrates.

Jon wrote:
There is not a single field study carried out anywhere in the world which has demonstrated that neonicotinoid pesticides are harmful to bees - and by God a lot of people have been motivated to try and demonstrate this.

.................................................. .............................
Alex wrote: In a meta-analysis of fourteen published studies of the effects of imidacloprid on honey bees under laboratory and semi-field conditions that comprised measurements on 7073 adult individuals and 36 colonies, fitted dose–response relationships estimate that trace dietary imidacloprid at field-realistic levels in nectar will have no lethal effects, but will reduce expected performance in honey bees by between 6 and 20%.’

Zeisstoff wrote:
It was further noted that no pollen was collected in the field where the rape had been treated
with Imidacloprid, however in the test colonies in the untreated fields pollen was collected in
large quantities. The evaluation of the test has indicated that bees affected by Imidacloprid
suffer problems with orientation. Bees with a particular level of Imidacloprid contamination at 500 metres from the colony did not return to the hive at all.

.................................................. ......................
Eric wrote: I guess Zeisstoff walks with God!
If you or I were either eating this stuff or feeding it to our livestock and getting this level of fall off - would we continue using it? No way! End of story! There is a glaring need for tighter regulations relative to world wide application of all pesticides. Instead of allowing the chemical multis to kill/maim or worse - the poor of the 3rd World, who are encouraged to apply this stuff as if it were snow or rain!

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Gavin wrote:
Regulators that allow uses of toxins at such a rate as to contaminate their environment so completely are failing in their duty of care. You just shouldn't be allowed to use such compounds on such a scale on golf courses or whatever was contaminating groundwater in the US and in the Netherlands, in commercial bulb farming or potato growing or wherever the contamination is coming from.
Surface water in the Netherlands. Why is Dr Tennekes citing 5,000 times the MTR in some samples - is that real? The map is scary enough, but that only shows 'over five times' the MTR. The MTR is 13 ppb, so is already close to the level which could harm wildlife, and five times that level indicates a serious problem that needs sorting right now!

So my interpretation of this is that there sounds like there is a real underlying problem, maybe a really serious one, but unfortunately Dr Tennekes' intervention is not helping. Blow the whistle by all means, but don't do it by misunderstanding the issue and invoking spurious arguments.
.................................................. ........

Tenneke wrote: 'virtually irreversible blockage of postsynaptic nicotinic AcetylCholine-Receptors (nAChRs) in the central nervous system of insects.'
Gavin wrote: I I found comments on the binding of imidacloprid to receptors, and it seems that you can wash off the imidacloprid within 20 mins with saline.
.................................................. .........
Talk about Ronald Reagan and “Bedtime with Bonzo” ! How about bath time for bugs?
.................................................. ..
C. Maus wrote:
‘After 10 years of research (C Maus et al Bulletin Insectology 2003 number 56, pages 51-57), it seems unlikely that imidacloprid was responsible for the French bee deaths.
.................................................. ....
Eric wrote:
On the paper itself it is stated that Maus et al work for Bayer, the manufacturer of imadicloprid, in Germany and France. Form your own opinions!

’
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

chris

27-02-2011, 07:53 PM

Eric wrote:
On the paper itself it is stated that Maus et al work for Bayer, the manufacturer of imadicloprid, in Germany and France. Form your own opinions!

Eric, who do you think financed Bonmatin?Was it Teddy Goldsmith? Greenpeace? Maurice Mary?Would that make his work less honest?

Mudslinging is not truth.It's certainly not worthy of someone who claims he is gravely concerned about the future of the world .

Jon

27-02-2011, 09:54 PM

Eric, who do you think financed Bonmatin?Was it Teddy Goldsmith? Greenpeace? Maurice Mary?.

My guess would be Borderbeeman!! He never shut up about Bonmatin's ten year old study in spite of the fact that thare are many more recent studies which do not support his preconceived ideas, or Eric's either for that matter. The other obsession was the fact that Bayer in its previous incarnation made Zyklon B. Oops, nearly let the cat out of the bag about Bonmatin's sponsor. Mentioned it once but I think I got away with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfl6Lu3xQW0

AlexJ

27-02-2011, 09:58 PM

Eric,

I’ve read the Eric Zeissstoff article you kindly translated which contains a few ‘yet unanswered’ and ‘could possibly be higher at point of harvest’…. if you have any source articles alluded to in the report I would be glad if you could post them (or email).

Apart from ending with a plug for a book the Tennekes pdf attachment doesn’t really add much to the debate other than raising questions about the Dutch Water Board’s management of what is presented as contamination of epic proportions. Given the slides’ contain data from 2006/2007 I would have expected a serious environmental debate to have ensued in Holland and across Europe by now on the back of that information. I don't want to appear dismissive, perhaps I was expecting something more rigorous in tying species decline to neonicotinoids.

In terms of the honeybee debate I think we need to decide on what we mean as ‘harmful’ otherwise we will go round in circles. I believe from your posts that you use, or have used, Oxalic Acid and perhaps miticides to treat your bees. In that vein, beekeepers are happy to pour Oxalic Acid into their hives which can have a harmful physiological effect on their stock and in the same season use miticides (Apistan, ApiLife Var etc) which are reported to reduce drone sperm production without any real adverse comment. Do you consider these harmful to honeybees?

Neonicotinoids will have an effect on non target invertebrates such as honeybees; from what I can gather these affects in field trials are classified as sub-lethal e.g. disorientation. Does that make them ‘harmful’ in terms of mortality to honeybees and other species? There are very many reports supporting the sub-lethal hypothesis when neonicotinoids are used correctly. I’m not saying it’s a satisfactory situation but may be a risk humankind will have to accept when considering food production.

I’m not pro anything, I’m just not convinced by the information I’ve been presented with to-date for the immediate banning of neonicotinoids. What I have noted is the implied lack of humanity for our flora, fauna and environment if I do not accept without question the anti-pesticide argument. In an ideal world we wouldn’t need pesticides; that world hasn’t existed for some millennia.

If this thread can be kept on track I'm sure we'll all learn a lot about the use and effect of neonicotinoids as well as the informed opinions of beekeepers here and abroad.

Keep up the good work,

Alex

p.s. apologies for the incorrect spelling of the dreaded pesticide in my earlier posts, and being new to the internet forum scene please tell me if my posts are too long or rambling.

Jon

27-02-2011, 10:16 PM

Alex. I think more in depth analytical posts are exactly what is needed in this debate. Some parties are open minded, but some have already made up their minds and are unlikely to change their views no matter what evidence is presented.
I also have difficulties with Tennekes claims - as he seems to imply that because the decline of some bird species broadly coincides with the introduction of neonicotinoids, the former must be caused by the latter. It's pretty obvious to me that there are many factors such as general habitat decline which could also be major factors. Notwithstanding other risk factors, modern agriculture/monoculture, including excessive pesticide use is likely to be stressing many species. A recent UK Government discussion document looked at ways of increasing food production without bringing more land into general agricultural production and reducing habitat even further.

AlexJ

28-02-2011, 12:37 AM

Jon,

I agree there's so much emotion generated around the topic that much of the common sense debate gets buried in a smokescreen of emotion; you're video clip was spot on.

While I'm capable of carrying out my own research (albeit with no background in genetics, biochemistry or toxicology) I'll undoubtedly miss some of the finer detail, context or links between important pieces of work. In that respect I'm ever hopeful that those who are more knowledgeable and experienced will stick their head above the parapet and get involved.

Alex

Jon

28-02-2011, 01:06 AM

Those who shout the loudest are not necessarily right, in fact their words often turn out to be complete hubris.
I instinctively mistrust anyone who tries to reduce a complex issue to tabloid soundbites.
It's important to get at the truth - and not be swayed by those who just 'know' they are right even though the available evidence does not support their position.
There is good debate to be had re. pesticides on this forum, the Irish forum, the Bbka forum and the Bee-L forum.

gavin

28-02-2011, 01:18 AM

Hey! You mean that there is good debate to be had on *this* forum surely!

Neils

28-02-2011, 02:09 AM

Is there good debate? Can we get past the notion that people must be "pro" or "anti" pesticides and actually debate this, perhaps acknowledging that this isn't currently a black and White discussion?

I'm apparently pro pesticide at the moment for daring to ask what happens if neonicotinoids are banned.

In the meantime I'm trying to come to an informed descision but, as yet, I've not seen anything that backs up the "ban them tomorrow" point of view which surprises me given the urgency with which it's being promoted in some quarters and raising questions around it simply gets you shouted at and called names which immediately makes me suspicious that the good intentions of Beekeepers and the wider public are simply being used.

Jon

28-02-2011, 11:16 AM

I'm apparently pro pesticide at the moment for daring to ask

You and me both Nellie, and I have been a vegetarian for 30 years and grow quite a bit of the food I consume without the use of pesticides or chemical fertilizers.
It is exemplified by comments like this:

Hi All
There seems to be a very strong pro pesticide opinion in this thread.

Who is pro pesticide? There are several who are calling for evidence, and but one who is calling for a ban irrespective of the evidence.
That does not make the rational posters 'pro pesticide'

Borderbeeman suggested I must work for Bayer when I pointed out some of the gaps and contradictions in his argument. I notice Eric uses exactly the same tactics - cut and paste combined with personal slur, against both the individual and science in general. It's a bit sad really, either your argument holds water or it doesn't.

chris

28-02-2011, 11:25 AM

which immediately makes me suspicious that the good intentions of Beekeepers and the wider public are simply being used.

This is exactly what happened in France. Media campaigns that moved further and further from the truth until the banning had little to do with bees.

BUT, we still have to keep bees. I am* lucky* because there is no intensive agriculture nearby, so I don't have to make a decision. If there was a neonicotinoid being used near my hives, I'm not sure that I'd feel relaxed about it, in spite of all I've read about the lack of field trial evidence. That of course has nothing to do with science, just one of my preconceived ideas left over from the days when insecticides definitely killed the bees.With an open mind it's not too hard to adjust intellectually.But emotionally............................

gavin

28-02-2011, 01:43 PM

If there was a neonicotinoid being used near my hives, I'm not sure that I'd feel relaxed about it, in spite of all I've read about the lack of field trial evidence. That of course has nothing to do with science, just one of my preconceived ideas left over from the days when insecticides definitely killed the bees.With an open mind it's not too hard to adjust intellectually.But emotionally............................

I felt exactly the same when approval was given to use Chinook (imidacloprid) seed dressing on OSR in the UK. I was angry. The French experience showed us that there were probably damaging effects of imidacloprid and I was angry that the UK authorities were going ahead without being worried about bees. Many years down the line my bees do the same as they did before - sometimes there is a good flow from the rape, sometimes not, but they always build up well on it. Then the research starting coming out that seemed to try hard to link bee problems to neonicotinoids in the field, but couldn't. And finally I read the report of the small part of the French research effort that took a broader view of the problems of bees (thanks Chris). Time to reappraise ....

G.

Stromnessbees

28-02-2011, 03:48 PM

Hi Gavin, could you please post the link from post 8 again, at the moment it's not working.

If we are now discussing where we all stand when it comes to peticides I would love to say that we should get rid of them all. But I can't say that as even I use them:

1. On our organic farm we give one drench of sheep wormer to the ewes at lambing time before they are moved to 'clean grazing'. Also, if lambs fail to thrive we can do a worm-egg-count and dose them if the numbers are high.

2. My cat also gets the occasional treatment with a pesticide against fleas.

3. And then there's of course my indirect use when buying food etc.

I try to minimise negative effects though by buying organic foods when I can, and the cat has to live with the occasional flea.

On the farm the choice of pesticide is very important though. Our prefered wormers for the sheep are old fashioned non-systemic ones which (as far as I could find out) do not persist in the dung and therefore won't disrupt the breakdown of the dung in the field and negatively affect wildlife.

However, the newer wormers (Avermectins) are used by many livestock farmers routinely and can have detrimental effects on arthropod numbers and therefore for example lead to a decline in bird numbers in otherwise pristine looking landscapes.

To allow farmers to make the right decisions the facts presented about pesticides need to be correct and easily available, and this is where we seem to have a major shortfall. Especially the persistency of a pesticide should be a very critical element in its evaluation.

I am also wondering why neonics wouldn't be harmful to mammals if they block receptors in synapses which are very similar in arthropods and mammals. Any explanations?

chris

28-02-2011, 06:08 PM

I am also wondering why neonics wouldn't be harmful to mammals if they block receptors in synapses which are very similar in arthropods and mammals. Any explanations?

Hello Doris, I don't have the necessary scientific knowledge to answer that question, but before being allowed on the market a pesticide must undergo many tests for its possible effects on mammals. In the case of the active element fipronil, the following may be helpful ?

http://www.affaire-gaucho-regent.com/pdf_abeilles/afsa_summery.pdf

Regards.

gavin

28-02-2011, 06:30 PM

Hi Gavin, could you please post the link from post 8 again, at the moment it's not working.

Sorry Doris, I boobed. The link is fixed now in post 8 and is also here (http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/reprint/200/21/2685.pdf).

Stromnessbees

28-02-2011, 08:29 PM

Thanks for posting the link again, Gavin.
I had a quick glance at it re. reversibility of effects of imidacloprid.
Here some quotes from that paper, indicating that it can't be washed out that easily:

p 2687: For longer applications (>3 min), and for the highest concentration used (100 mmol l-1), reversibility was poor even after prolonged wash-out.

p 2689: Recovery of the responses to Imidacloprid was rarely observed even after a wash-out in normal saline of more than 20 min.

p 2690: However, it must be noted that the irreversible decline in the amplitude of responses to Imidacloprid suggests that this compound may have diverse and complex actions, additional to the activation of AChRs, that may also contribute to its insecticidal action.

Janine Kievits wrote an interesting article in Pesticides News: http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Issue/pn76/pn76%20p3-5.pdf

She points out major flaws in the testing and approval procedures for pesticides:

p 4/5: Flaws in the process

Analysis of the reports shows that the current process is insufficient to credibly test the potential toxicity of insecticides used in seed treatments. The present scheme does not take into account the chronic toxicity of the products, despite the fact they are present in the plant throughout its period of blooming...
and

p 5:Two major failings

There are two major failings in the current review process. Firstly, it relies on studies
supplied solely by the company putting the substance forward for review (the ‘notifier’,
often the manufacturer). And no review of the scientific literature is required. For example...

The second major failing is that the whole assessment process takes place without any
overview by civil society...

Eric McArthur

28-02-2011, 09:39 PM

Hi All
Is there a debate here?

Hi All
I am with Gavin on this one: “Hey! You mean that there is good debate to be had on *this* forum surely”!
His cynicism is well placed. Everyone in this thread is cherry picking, as usual – either trying to discredit opposing opinions by resorting to sarcasm, which is a sure indication somebody’s comfort zone has been penetrated or implying name calling and injured pride – Pass the smelling salts Mabel!
Jon’s astonishing statement; attributed to a government initiative:
“A recent UK Government discussion document looked at ways of increasing food production without bringing more land into general agricultural production and reducing habitat even further”.
In the not so recent past the UK government has been encouraging farmers to remove arable land from cultivation – converting to caravan sites and other non productive strategies. Scotland is well placed to increase food production and is in the enviable position that with a NON- GM/ MINIMALIST PESTICIDE agricutural policy the Nation is capable of feeding the population and even exporting our surplus.
Gavin must be aware of the latent potential of Scottish agriculture.
For hundreds of years the farming community has supplied the nation with its daily bread, meat, vegetables, milk and not forgetting our beer and whisky! These comodities were produced without the input of massive quantities of chemicals – the 2nd World War proved that a well organised agricultural regime could supply the need.
A well tried and proven system of crop rotation and ploughing which maintained disease and parasites worked. The land was fertile and well managed and highly productive. Fields were left fallow on a cyclic periodic and livestock was moved around to different grazing to maintain ground parasites at below lethal levels.
There were enormous flocks of lapwings, an abundance of pipits, chaffinches, buntings, skylarks, blackbirds, thrushes, moorhens and great numbers of migrant species like the corncrake, fieldfare, redwings the list was endless.
What happened? Again Gavin could put a precise date on the “Doomsday Scenario” which ensued to destroy those halcyon years.
I hear the cynics mumbling – “What about soil fertility”? “What about soil pests”? What about???
Crop rotation, green fertiliser, clover as a nitrogen fixer, chemical FERTILISER used sparingly and wisely, constant animal welfare and health checks would all take care of the sustainability of the land.
I stumbled on this piece of prose recently – perhaps it might yield some opinions good, bad or indifferent.

Eric

Soil Degradation
Much has been written about the woes and ills of apiculture and agriculture in recent years. There is little doubt that we are fast approaching a ‘watershed’ in our ability as humans to sustain the high living standards of some and simultaneously improve the quality of life of the many at present well below the accepted poverty level in the developed industrial societies. The world human population, according to the best estimates will reach a burgeoning 8.3 billion souls by 2030. There is a school of thought which advocates that GM crops will supply the necessary sustenance for such a population: There is a polemic to this rationale which states just the opposite; each protagonist group insisting that they have the moral high ground. Another parameter associated with the foregoing is the issue of agricultural chemicals in the form of fertilisers and pesticides; again there is a great gulf of opinion: The organic lobby visualises a future without chemicals or at least with minimal application: The present vociferous pro- chemical lobby opines that without the agro-chemicals the world population will face starvation. These foregoing entrenched attitudes however valid are a long way off the true mark in their philosophies for human survival in the medium to long term.
The food production dilemma; GM or not GM; chemical or non chemical agriculture will pale into insignificance when the looming real issue, soil degradation has to be addressed in the not too far distant future.
There is a band of farsighted people, members of the worldwide “Soil Association Movement” who have elevated themselves above the squabble about fragments such as those mentioned and who have focused on the real issue facing sustainability for the human race. Namely, where are the food crops which are so necessary for our survival going to be grown?
The indifference shown by world government to the soil degradation problem, ranks on the same level as the indifference to the need to sustain the honey bee population level to secure effective pollination of our important food crops. In our headlong rush for high efficiency a basic rule has been forgotten – when a problem is solved by experts versed only in the particular discipline ‘on the table’, the result usually spawns a host of other problems, some extremely serious. History is littered with examples of man’s deliberate or otherwise folly; rabbits in Oz, cane toads in Oz, Varroa world wide, anthrax on Grunaird – to say nothing of the pigs, goats and rats inadvertently introduced to the Galapagos over the centuries.
We need to look at projects designed to effect change on an objective, multi- disciplinarian level in order to arrive at a well researched beneficial end result.
At this present time more than six billion people depend on food produced on just 11% of the planet’s land surface: Worse only 3% of this surface comprises productive fertile soil. Soil degradation is steadily transforming productive land into deserts of one kind or other at mind numbing speed.
A statement attributed to U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt warned: “The history of every nation is written in the way in which it cares for its soil”. Wise words!

Eric McArthur

28-02-2011, 09:41 PM

Hi
Part 2

Scientists at the International Soil Reference and Information Centre in the Netherlands estimated in 1999 that mankind has degraded more than 7.5 million square miles of land. Our species, it would seem, is rapidly trashing an area the size of the US and Canada combined. A significant contributor to this degradation process is the rush to produce ever bigger mechanical harvesters, some weighing up to 15 tons. These massive machines mash wet soil into a well nigh impenetrable slab. Roots can’t penetrate the compacted ground, water drainage is poor; the water runs off causing erosion. The manufacturers of these giant machines are well aware of the damage done to the land due to compaction. Their solution to the compaction problem is to fit bigger tyres on the machines to spread the load. Farmers look at these machines as their salvation as they thunder through the cornfields – however in the long run they may be destroying their livelihoods and the very livelihoods of future generations. Unfortunately compaction is merely a small component in the mosaic of interrelated problems inflicting damage to soils all over the planet. “We are fast running out of dirt” - is a quote by a geologist at the University of Washington.
The Loess Plateau in China is a classic example of bad soil management due to rushing headlong into full scale, but untried farming practices – a system, the Dazhai Way, adopted by the Chinese government has resulted in the exacerbation of soil erosion by the Yellow River, deemed to be the worst erosion problem in the world to date. The Loess Plateau is about the size of France, Belgium and the Netherlands combined.
Opposed to this the Keita Project established 25 years ago by the Italian government of the day, has transformed 1,876 square miles of previously barren mountainous country in central Niger into an agricultural near miracle, which is now home to some 230,000 people. The project entailed tree planting to attenuate winds, lines of fist sized stones to slow the pace of eroding rainwater flow and a dam building program to conserve water from the seasonal rains.
There was a famine in Holland during the years 1944 – 45 one Dutch family survived on a minute plot of plaggen soil; land enriched by generations of careful cultivation. This family are grateful for their ancestors care of the land, without this care the whole family might have died.
Haiti is a classic example of soil mismanagement. Today less than 4% of Haiti’s forests remain and in many places the soil has eroded right down to bedrock. Haiti has to import some 400,000 tons of rice annually. The deputy director of the U.S. Agency for International Development in Haiti is quoted as stating “That’s as it should be, food self-sufficiency is not necessarily the goal. If it makes economical sense for them to sell mangoes and import rice then that’s as it should be”. The trouble is the farmers can’t sell enough mangoes to afford imported rice – shades of Marie Antoinette.

All is however not lost, farming practices employed by primitive tribes in the Amazon basin, described in the 1966 book, “Amazon Soils”, by Dutchman Wim Sombroek could be our salvation. Despite the fact that Amazonian soils are notoriously fragile and impoverished Sombroek discovered large patches of terra preta do indio (black Indian earth) scattered along the Amazon River. This soil is as lush and dark as the life saving plaggen mentioned earlier. It forms a rich base for agriculture in a land where it was not supposed to exist. Terra preta is found only where human habitation occurred, which means it was a man made soil, dating from before the arrival of Europeans. The soil is rich in phosphorus, calcium, zinc and manganese which are scarce in tropical soils – its most striking ingredient is charcoal - vast quantities of it; the source of terra preta’s colour. It is the result of burning plants and refuse at low temperatures. Researchers at the University of Bayreuth report that simply adding crumbled charcoal and condensed smoke imparts an exponential increase in fertility to bad tropical soils. Tests by a US – Brazilian team in 2006 found that terra preta had a far greater number and variety of microorganisms than typical tropical soils – it was literally more alive!
It is now believed that a black soil revolution based on terra preta might help combat global warming. Terra preta contains 10 – 20 times more carbon than typical tropical soils and the carbon can be buried much deeper down. Rough calculations indicate that the amount of carbon we can put into the soil is quite staggering. Researchers have postulated that man’s use of fossil fuels worldwide could be wholly offset by storing carbon in terra preta nova a modern version of terra preta do indio. These scientists are convinced that the world is going to hear a lot more about terra preta. Coupled to a steady return to crop rotation, reclaiming land from mono culture and resisting ‘knee jerk’ fertiliser/pesticide pollution regimes acre by acre, tree planting and systematic, planned soil enrichment programmes based on the high carbon mineral rich terra preta, food production might just be increased to meet the enormous demands predicted for the 2030s. Beekeepers, bees and other beneficial organisms would also benefit dramatically from a properly planned, sustainable world agricultural economy.
Let’s hope we as a species have the savvy to do the necessary spade work!

Jon

28-02-2011, 10:15 PM

Jon’s astonishing statement; attributed to a government initiative:
“A recent UK Government discussion document looked at ways of increasing food production without bringing more land into general agricultural production and reducing habitat even further”.

Always happy to astonish you Eric.
I attributed it to a Government initiative because...it was the product of a Government initiative.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/food/pdf/food2030strategy-summary.pdf

Edit
And here is the Foresight Report (http://www.bis.gov.uk/foresight/our-work/projects/current-projects/global-food-and-farming-futures/reports-and-publications#challenge-a) published on Jan 24 2011.

Page 15 of the report:

There are strong environmental grounds for limiting any significant expansion of agricultural land in the
future (although restoration of derelict, degraded or degrading land will be important). In particular,
further conversion of rainforest to agricultural land should be avoided as it will increase greenhouse
gas emissions very significantly and accelerate the loss of biodiversity.

gavin

01-03-2011, 01:18 AM

Janine Kievits wrote an interesting article in Pesticides News:

Hi Doris

Yes, the paper does indicate that some effects are irreversible. That is a different thing from saying that imidacloprid irreversibly binds to the receptors though. Doesn't it just mean that the mechanism had been damaged beyond repair? This might all seem like semantics, but we are arguing about what Dr Tennekes said, and he clearly stated that imidacloprid binds irreversibly to the receptors.

The Janine Kievits article was interesting and nicely written. She seemed to dismiss the alternatives, saying that they seemed unlikely, then all that was left was the pesticide hypothesis and she seemed comfortable with that. In 2007 I might have agreed with her, but not now. 'It also seems unlikely that the declining hives are affected by any known viruses'. Maybe, but one previously unknown (actually less well known) one has now been described and seems like a prime candidate. 'CCD does not follow the pattern of an infectious disease.' Hmmmnn, plenty of people have said that it does.

She is from Wallonia in Belgium. Instead of speculating, why didn't she turn to real data from Wallonia instead?

http://www.affaire-gaucho-regent.com/pdf_abeilles/Expose_Rapportfinal.pdf

The report is all about determining the reasons for high losses in hives in Wallonia. It is in French, so I hope that you can follow it.

all the best

Gavin

gavin

01-03-2011, 01:27 AM

Hi All
I am with Gavin on this one: “Hey! You mean that there is good debate to be had on *this* forum surely”!
His cynicism is well placed. Everyone in this thread is cherry picking, as usual – either trying to discredit opposing opinions by resorting to sarcasm, which is a sure indication somebody’s comfort zone has been penetrated

Hi Eric

I wasn't being cynical with that remark - it was meant sincerely.

I agree with quite a lot - but not all of course - of your long post. Sustainability in agriculture is the new mantra in agricultural research and it really is taken seriously. But this is getting away from the point of this discussion, which was Dr Tennekes' claims and worries over what is now called 'diffuse pollution'.

Gavin

AlexJ

01-03-2011, 05:33 PM

As the post was started in relation to the risk associated with neonicotinoids we appear to have wandered off track. Here’s my attempt at a quick baseline summary of my thoughts to date (apologies for any errors or tortured science along the way):

Neonicotinoids are reported to be very effective for crop protection against piercing-sucking pests; and they are highly effective for flea control on cats and dogs.

They are readily absorbed by plants and act quickly, on piercing-sucking insect pests (aphids, leafhoppers, and whiteflies) of major crops. The neonicotinoids are poor as contact insecticides and for control of lepidopterous larvae. They are used primarily as plant systemics; when applied to seeds, soil, or foliage they move to the growing tip and afford long-term protection from piercing-sucking insects, apparently for up to 40 days in rice.

Neonicotinoids and pyrethroids have higher selectivity factors for insects versus mammals than the organophosphates, methylcarbamates, and organochlorines. They generally have low toxicity to mammals (acute and chronic), birds, and fish. The low affinity of neonicotinoids for vertebrate relative to insect nicotinic receptors is apparently a major factor in their favourable toxicological profile.

Owing to their relatively high water solubility and slow metabolism in mammals, some (IMI and thiacloprid) to almost all (clothianidin, dinotefuran, and nitenpyram) of an oral neonicotinoid dose is excreted unchanged in urine.

But yes, if you feed enough of the substance to rats, goats and ducks they will develop debilitating diseases. Nicotine and other nicotinoids are candidate therapeutic agents as analgesics and for treatment of neurodegenerative diseases which indicates potential used for neonicotinoids.

NEONICOTINOID INSECTICIDE TOXICOLOGY: Mechanisms of Selective Action Motohiro Tomizawa and John E. Casida, Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology Laboratory, Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley (2005).

Studies to date have not identified lethal affects on honeybees (trace dietary imidacloprid at field-realistic levels in nectar) but have noted reduced performance of between 6 and 20%.’ This includes effects similar to intoxication and lack of foraging performance.

A meta-analysis of experiments testing the effects of a neonicotinoid insecticide (imidacloprid) on honey bees. James E. Cresswell, Ecotoxicology Nov 2010

Neonicotinoids have been found in hives across the world and in France more than one hive in two has residues of imidacloprid in the pollen, 30% in honey and 26% in bees; the level of exposure is sub-lethal with no obvious effect on mortality. There is however thought to be a synergistic link between Nosema and imidclororid.

Interactions between Nosema microspores and a neonicotinoid weaken honeybees (Apis mellifera) Cédric Alaux, et al Environmental Microbiology (2009)

However, an important source of contamination in hives is from miticides used by apiculturists for the treatment of Varroa mite.

High Levels of Miticides and Agrochemicals in North American Apiaries: Implications for Honey Bee Health Christopher A. Mullin et al Open Access Article 2010.

Bee Honey as an Environmental Bioindicator of Pesticides’ Occurrence in Six Agricultural Areas of Greece. George Balayiannis & Panos Balayiannis Arch Environ Contam Toxicol (2008) 55:462–470.

Interspersed among the studies and reports is a great deal of emotion and internet posts which indicate neonicotinoids are an extreme danger to a wide range of species and the environment without clearly articulating the scientific basis for their rationale.

Most importantly, from a beekeeping perspective, no one has defined what they mean as harmful even though the majority use Oxalic Acid and miticides to treat honeybees. It is known that Oxalic Acid can have a harmful physiological effect on honeybees and similarly miticides (Apistan, ApiLife Var etc) can also reduce drone sperm production.

For me this is especially important as it appears the honeybee genome contains significantly fewer ‘annotated’ genes compared to other insect genomes. One interpretation of a lack of so called detoxification genes in the honeybee is likely to translate to less pesticide detoxification capability, which could explain the honeybees’ unusual sensitivity to pesticides. This is likely to affect the honeybee’s ability to respond to multiple stressors, including those from beekeepers.

A deficit of detoxification enzymes: pesticide sensitivity and environmental response in the honeybee C. Claudianos et al 2006 Open Source Journal compilation © 2006 The Royal Entomological Society.

Now that we’re entering a discussion on agricultural methods in general I’ll bow out.

Neils

01-03-2011, 10:43 PM

Useful summary Alex.

Eric McArthur

02-03-2011, 03:20 PM

Hi Alex

Alex wrote:
But have noted reduced performance of between 6 and 20%.’ This includes effects similar to intoxication and lack of foraging performance.
.................................
This is a good situation? If this scenario were to occur in the human population there would be an uproar! Why accept this punishing regime on bees and other nectar feeding arthropods?
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Neonicotinoids have been found in hives across the world and in France more than one hive in two has residues of imidacloprid in the pollen, 30% in honey and 26% in bees; the level of exposure is sub-lethal with no obvious effect on mortality. There is however thought to be a synergistic link between Nosema and imidclororid. .................................................. ......

(Hmmmmm! Pettis and van Engeldorp did not think they found a synergistic link between Nosema and imidacloprid. They proved the link!
Eric!
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

It is known that Oxalic Acid can have a harmful physiological effect on honeybees
................................................
Oxalic acid occurs naturally in honey!

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;
One interpretation of a lack of so called detoxification genes in the honeybee is likely to translate to less pesticide detoxification capability, which could explain the honeybees’ unusual sensitivity to pesticides. This is likely to affect the honeybee’s ability to respond to multiple stressors, including those from beekeepers.
.................................................. ..........
Read this again Alex viz “which could explain the honeybees’ unusual sensitivity to pesticides”.

Alex my man you are going round in circles!

Whatever the “vested interest prophets” tell you – the evidence that something is severely wrong with current pesticide based agriculture is plain to see!
Where have all the birds and soil dwelling organisms which constitute the food supply of the ‘lower animals’ gone? The absence of the huge variety of bees, moths and other flying insects which in days of yore used to result in enormous “kills” on road vehicle windscreens is a sure indication that there is ‘Trouble at Mill’. Carson was pilloried by the same type of people who are promoting this current pesticide over kill. The chemical multis continue to develop increasingly effective poisons which will ultimately work – to put it mildly; “counter productively” on life on this fragile autonomous spaceship Earth!
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Hi All

Gavin wrote: (from another source!)

I've been taking lessons from Eric on not how to do that effectively! (Sorry Eric, if you are reading)
.....................................

I would be obliged if you would desist from this infantile slandering of my name. You really are quite pathetic!
You might like to comment objectively on Tom McGravie’s comments on page 66 of the March, 2011 issue of the Scottish beekeeper magazine on Varroa incursion – at a time when you probably could not even spell the name!
From the stuff you are penning relative to your dispute with the SBA Executive’s DEMOCRATIC DECISION on Dr Connolly’s project it would appear to the objective observer that you are in crisis.

Eric

Jon

02-03-2011, 03:35 PM

Eric McArthur

02-03-2011, 06:54 PM

Hi All
Jon wrote:
We had Chemical Ali and we also have Chemical Eric.
If I am not mistaken you have tipped all sorts of chemicals and pesticides into your hives over the years in the name of varroa control.
.................................................. ............................................
There you go again Jon, name calling and jumping to unfounded conclusions! If you had been a subscriber to the “Scottish Beekeeper” magazine between 1994 and 2005, you would never have posed that question. As I pointed out to Alex; oxalic acid and formic acid occur naturally in honey – I have used both of these substances for many years in moderation and even today, yesterday actually, there is NO MITE FALL in any of the “Clyde Area Bee Breeders Group” colonies.
As a matter of fact due to my perseverance as editor of the “Scottish Beekeeper”, against virtually nationwide criticism, many beekeepers still have bees today, having moved over to the organics which I advised; just as pyrethroid resistant mites appeared. Most sensible, progressive beekeepers now use oxalic acid at dosages recommended either by weight or volume.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Jon wrote:
One of the main conclusions of the Engelsdorp study you mentioned above was that the highest levels of chemicals found in bee colonies were the chemicals put there by the beekeeper as part of varroa control. So who is the bad guy here?
.................................................. .....
Not true! Their ground breaking finding was a lethal synergistic relationship between imidacloprid and Nosema sp..
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Jon wrote:
Whatever the “vested interest prophets” tell you ...
You lost me here. Who are you referring to?
.................................................
If the shoe fits............................!

.................................................. ...........
Jon wrote:
I still don't understand your position on pesticides. Do you want them all banned or just neonicotinoids?
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Neonicotinoids should be banned for the reasons below: The use of all pesticides needs to be more closely regulated, with the long term view of fostering sustainable agriculture by correct land management, crop rotation and ploughing, instead of the present - “no till, total kill” policy.
1 ‘Neonicotinoids’ are extremely poisonous; Imidacloprid is 5000 times more toxic than DDT and Clothianidin is even more lethal. Just 3 to 5 parts per billion of Clothianidin in solution will kill any bee.
2 Crooked science
Bayer promised to carry out an additional ‘lifetime, or chronic exposure, study’ in 2003 – but only submitted this after four growing seasons in 2007. Bayer went to Canada and placed just four beehives in a two and a half acre plot of canola, treated with Clothianidin, surrounded by a vast prairie of untreated wild flowers. Now – the foraging radius of a bee colony is – conservatively – about 1.5 miles, this makes for about 3,000 acres. So, in comparison to 3,000 acres of pesticide-free forage, 2.5 acres of pesticide-laced canola, represents about 0.0008 of the total area – less than a fifteenth of one percent.
.................................................. .............................
Jon wrote:

What is the source or reference for the two posts you made on soil degredation the other day?
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Land Degradation references:
Please would have been nice!
1) Terra Preta di Indio
2) Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology
3) National Geographic Magazine, September 2008.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Jon

02-03-2011, 08:46 PM

One of the main conclusions of the Engelsdorp study you mentioned above was that the highest levels of chemicals found in bee colonies were the chemicals put there by the beekeeper as part of varroa control. So who is the bad guy here?
.................................................. .....
Not true! Their ground breaking finding was a lethal synergistic relationship between imidacloprid and Nosema sp..

Hi Eric.
Which Engelsdorp and Pettis study are you referring to?

This one - High Levels of Miticides and Agrochemicals in North American Apiaries: Implications for Honey Bee Health - was published in March last year.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0009754

Apparently Pettis did some work on pesticides and nosema interaction a couple of years ago but hasn't got it published yet. There has been speculation that this is due to the difficulty in isolating the effects of the nosema / pecticide interaction from other general stresses produced in caged bee studies. Either way, he hasn't found a journal happy enough to stand over it yet. There was some talk that a German journal was going to publish it.

The published work on neonicotinoid nosema interactions is the paper by Alaux.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2009.02123.x/abstract

As I pointed out to Alex; oxalic acid and formic acid occur naturally in honey
Come now, at the concentrations used by beekeepers, I don't think so.

You could use that argument to justify neonicotinoids as well as they are based on the naturally occuring insecticide nicotine.
I like vinegar on my chips and I fumigate old comb with 80% acetic acid but am careful not to mix them up as the product has quite a dose dependent effect!

Jon wrote:
Whatever the “vested interest prophets” tell you ...
You lost me here. Who are you referring to?
.................................................
If the shoe fits............................!

Still lost Eric. Too cryptic for me.

As a matter of fact due to my perseverance as editor of the “Scottish Beekeeper”, against virtually nationwide criticism, many beekeepers still have bees today,

Must be great to have saved the world so many times over.

Re the references, 1) Terra Preta di Indio means Indian black earth in Portugese. It is not a journal!! I noticed that the two posts you made were cribbed almost verbatim from a National Geographic article (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2008/09/soil/mann-text).

Now – the foraging radius of a bee colony is – conservatively – about 1.5 miles, this makes for about 3,000 acres.

Do the math. 1.5 * 1.5 *3.14 * 640 = 4521 acres
You are cutting and pasting from dodgy sources.

Imidacloprid is 5000 times more toxic than DDT

Based on what measure?

5 parts per billion of Clothianidin in solution will kill any bee

The issue is whether this happens under field conditions.
Noone has managed to demonstrate this yet.
if it doesn't happen in the field it is not a problem.

Your opinion is clearly that neonicotinoids should be banned, but that is of limited interest to impartial observers who are interested in evidence and facts re. the potential problems.

2 Crooked science
Bayer promised to carry out an additional ‘lifetime, or chronic exposure, study’ in 2003 – but only submitted this after four growing seasons in 2007. Bayer went to Canada and placed just four beehives in a two and a half acre plot of canola, treated with Clothianidin, surrounded by a vast prairie of untreated wild flowers. Now – the foraging radius of a bee colony is – conservatively – about 1.5 miles, this makes for about 3,000 acres. So, in comparison to 3,000 acres of pesticide-free forage, 2.5 acres of pesticide-laced canola, represents about 0.0008 of the total area – less than a fifteenth of one percent.

Beekeepers in the uk who are surrounded by Oil seed rape (canola) report that their bees build up really well on it. I noted with Interest that the leading anti neonicotinoid campaigner borderbeeman eventually admitted that he hadn't lost a single colony in two years even though he is completely surounded by oil seed rape. Well well well. How can you explain that if Imidacloprid is '5000 times more toxic than DDT?'

AlexJ

02-03-2011, 08:53 PM

Eric,
We’re only going around in circles due to the constant focus on those who are ‘against’ and those who are ‘for’ pesticide (neonicotinoid) use. If you stop viewing the debate through a prism of total objection to their use we might come to a consensus of opinion. I like most would rather we didn’t have to resort to industrial scale pesticide use but I am willing to accept that there may be a degree of risk to be tolerated until a safer pest management system can be developed for agricultural use. I would be grateful if you could suggest such a system to serve our present global food needs (only to put neonicotinoid use into perspective and not move off topic).

As to your points in relation to my post I quite readily acknowledge the affect pesticides have, but also the affect beekeepers have on bees. I’m aware that oxalic and formic acid occur naturally. However, you seem to conveniently dismiss the ill affect they can have on bees by using terms such as

…oxalic acid and formic acid occur naturally in honey – I have used both of these substances for many years in moderation and even today, yesterday actually… Most sensible, progressive beekeepers now use oxalic acid at dosages recommended either by weight or volume

That’s the language used by those who produce and use pesticides, ‘only use as directed in order to…’ You can’t ignore your chemicals of choice while berating others for using theirs without producing a clearly articulated rationale for doing so.

In this vein, and given the use of miticides does contaminate hives and can affect bee health/performance what do you consider an acceptable risk to bee health and performance?

I’m not sure what you mean by your comments in relation to honeybee genetics. I can only reiterate that if we (that includes you) artificially manage an animal for our own use and treat it intensively with proprietary pest control chemicals it will have an effect on them. If that animal is genetically ‘weaker’ than other similar species it may mean our intervention will have an even greater stress effect on them. In this respect we may have to consider this fact when benchmarking the affect of neonicotinoid on honeybees against other species.

I would be grateful if you could point me in the direction of the reports you allude to in points 1/2 in post 39.

Thanks,

Alex

Stromnessbees

03-03-2011, 12:07 PM

This is an interesting discussion, but unfortunately I am too busy to follow up all the presented links.

As stated earlier I am not against the use of all pesticides, we need them as emergency measures when things go wrong.

However, today's industrial agriculture tends to use what Eric calls the 'kill all' approach: drench the seed with systemic pesticides which last for a long time and kill anything that tries to feed of the plant.

No wonder the fields turn into green deserts which are hostile to any wildlife.

In my opinion the use of neonicotinoids should be put on halt until sencere, unbiased research can prove that they are not causing harm to bees. In the meantime we should go back to treating crops whenever necessary (pests can be tolerated up to certain threshholds) with the least harmful of easily biodegradable chemicals.

What my own experience has shown is that healthy soils usually produce healthy crops which don't need chemical warfare.

Jon

03-03-2011, 12:33 PM

Hi Doris:

However, today's industrial agriculture tends to use what Eric calls the 'kill all' approach: drench the seed with systemic pesticides which last for a long time and kill anything that tries to feed of the plant.

I am not even sure pesticides are the biggest contributor to 'green deserts'. Roundup is regarded as a relatively harmless herbicide, yet the very concept of 'roundup ready' crops leads to a reduction in flowering plants, aka weeds, which bees and other insects could have foraged on. (cue the comments on GM!) Loss of habitat combined with large scale monoculture and other modern agricultural practices could explain the loss of biodiversity more easily than putting the blame on pesticides, especially neonicotinoid pesticides where repeated field trials in several different jurisdictions have failed to note significant harm to bees.

In my opinion the use of neonicotinoids should be put on halt until sencere, unbiased research can prove that they are not causing harm to bees.

Do you really think the extensive research, especially the field trials, are either insincere or biased? I never buy in to those conspiracy theories as you have to assume that both science and a vast number of scientists are corrupt. I just don't believe that. Anyway how can you possibly prove a negative, ie that neonicotinoids are not causing harm to bees? The anti neonicotinoid campaigners will always argue that the fact that there is no evidence does not mean that some will not turn up at some indeterminate point in the future. You could argue that way about anything but it is going around in circles. You can't prove there are no pixies in Orkney just because none has ever seen one!

Stromnessbees

03-03-2011, 07:03 PM

Hi Jon

I am not even sure pesticides are the biggest contributor to 'green deserts'. Roundup is regarded as a relatively harmless herbicide, yet the very concept of 'roundup ready' crops leads to a reduction in flowering plants, aka weeds, which bees and other insects could have foraged on.

You can imagine that I am not the greatest fan of Roundup either...

I never buy in to those conspiracy theories as you have to assume that both science and a vast number of scientists are corrupt. I have not said that both science and a vast mumber of scientists are corrupt, of course not! I like science and have a lot of respect for people who dedicate their lives to improvements and advancing knowledge.

The fault lies in the system ...
more about that later, though, as I need to dash off just now.

Doris

Eric McArthur

04-03-2011, 12:24 PM

Hi All
Alex wrote:
I would be grateful if you could point me in the direction of the reports you allude to in points 1/2 in post 39.
.................................................. ......................................
1 A Disaster in the Making, Henk Tenneke, page 20.
Suchail et al. (2001) also
noted that at concentrations of 0.1, 1, and 10 μg of imidacloprid
per liter, the total cumulated dose ingested by honeybees in
chronic intoxication was about 60 to 6,000 times lower than the
doses needed to produce the same effect in acute intoxication
tests

2 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – December 8, 2010
CONTACT:
Heather Pilatic, Pesticide Action Network
cell: 415.694.8596
Jay Feldman, Beyond Pesticides
202.543.5450, ext 15
Beekeepers Ask EPA to Remove Pesticide Linked to Colony Collapse Disorder,
Citing Leaked Agency Memo
Pesticide Already Illegal in Germany, Italy & France Based on Scientific Findings
SAN FRANCISCO and WASHINGTON, D.C. – Beekeepers and environmentalists today called on EPA to remove a pesticide linked to Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), citing a leaked EPA memo that discloses a critically flawed scientific support study. The November 2nd memo identifies a core study underpinning the registration of the insecticide clothianidin as unsound after EPA quietly re-evaluated the pesticide just as it was getting ready to allow a further expansion of its use. Clothianidin (product name “Poncho”) has been widely used as a seed treatment on many of the country‟s major crops for eight growing seasons under a “conditional registration” granted while EPA waited for Bayer Crop Science, the pesticide‟s maker, to conduct a field study assessing the insecticide‟s threat to bee colony health.
Bayer‟s field study was the contingency on which clothianidin‟s conditional registration was granted in 2003. As such, the groups are calling for an immediate stop-use order on the pesticide while the science is redone, and redesigned in partnership with practicing beekeepers. They claim that the initial field study guidelines, which the Bayer study failed to satisfy, were insufficiently rigorous to test whether or not clothianidin contributes to CCD in a real-world scenario: the field test evaluated the wrong crop, over an insufficient time period and with inadequate controls.

According to beekeeper Jeff Anderson, who has testified before EPA on the topic, “The Bayer study is fatally flawed. It was an open field study with control and test plots of about 2 acres each. Bees typically forage at least 2 miles out from the hive, so it is likely they didn‟t ingest much of the treated crops. And corn, not canola, is the major pollen-producing crop that bees rely on for winter nutrition. This is a critical point because we see hive losses mainly after over-wintering, so there is something going on in these winter cycles. It‟s as if they designed the study to avoid seeing clothianidin‟s effects on hive health.”
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Hi All
Jon wrote:
I noticed that the two posts you made were cribbed almost verbatim from a National Geographic article.
.................................................. ...
The Land Degradation piece was printed in both the “Scottish Beekeeper” magazine and “The Beekeepers’ Quarterly” a year or so ago – in both these magazines; credit was given to the “National Geographic”.
Rather churlish that you could not admit to having learned something! Do you get YOUR information straight from God? Ordinary mortals have to read and view to acquire information. Information unless disseminated is no use to anyone!
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;
Jon wrote:
Must be great to have saved the world so many times over.
.................................................. ..................
Oxalic acid treatment was a vilified procedure for many years; castigated by Medwyn Bew and my dear friend Glyn Davis, who has attempted many times to discredit me in its use over the years - I have the hard copy to prove that!
Check “Bee Craft” for information on the alternative treatments against Varroa with the “Scottish Beekeeper” during the years 1996 – 2004. There was virtually nothing positive about oxalic acid in “Bee Craft” at that time. The Scots were informed constantly of the developments as the substance “came of age”. I even had “words” publicly with the famous Ron Brown, who despite having been a science teacher declared publicly at a seminar in Scotland that he personally would not even consider using the substance!
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;
Jon wrote:
Your opinion is clearly that neonicotinoids should be banned, but that is of limited interest to impartial observers who are interested in evidence and facts re. the potential problems.
.................................................. .............
The “potential problem” is that much more than enough pesticides are being used to poison us all at present – we need fewer chemicals not a constantly increasing arsenal of more powerful poisons like the previously banned; hexachlorobenzine, toxaphen, aldrin, dieldrin, pentachlorophenol, endrin and mirex, which have been re-authorised under Codex Alimentarius; just waiting in the wings to be used when weeds again become resistant to the current poisons in the Round-up cocktail.
It has been noted, that circles are being described with no chance of anyone giving ground. Perhaps the work being embarked upon by Dr Connolly et al might give us a clearer picture of the issue on the table; with hopefully more independent focus being fixed on this vexed issue.
Doris also seems to have focused on the bigger picture and the “wider kill”, which is occurring relative to the soil dwelling organisms which contribute/ foster soil fertility!
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;
Jon wrote:
Beekeepers in the uk who are surrounded by Oil seed rape (canola) report that their bees build up really well on it. I noted with Interest that the leading anti neonicotinoid campaigner borderbeeman eventually admitted that he hadn't lost a single colony in two years even though he is completely surounded by oil seed rape.
.................................................. ................
Borderman wrote;
I have lost 3 out of ten colonies this winter - but more interestingly - I had almost every new young queen superseded at least once in the last two seasons - i.e. ten colonies superseded a brand new queen which had been bred in May - and replaced each with a new queen in June. In some cases they superseded AGAIN in August.

I haven't harvested a honey surplus now for three years. Not sure why I keep trying really.
Am desperately trying to find a new apiary site away from the OSR .................................................. .........
Eric wrote:
Where do you get your info from Jon?

Jon

04-03-2011, 01:10 PM

I haven't harvested a honey surplus now for three years. Not sure why I keep trying really.
Am desperately trying to find a new apiary site away from the OSR .................................................. .........
Eric wrote:
Where do you get your info from Jon?

From the horse's mouth, via his posts on beesource. Post 11 on this thread.

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249960&page=2

Re. the supersedure, many beekeepers are seeing this. It seems to be happening with local queens, imported queens, bees in OSR bees, away from OSR. There are various theories from poor mating to chemical contamination to nosema. Borderbeeman says it is the Imidacloprid but he always blames everything on neonicotinoids irrespective of available evidence. Each to their own.

we need fewer chemicals not a constantly increasing arsenal...

I agree, but it needs careful analysis and careful planning to move towards more sustainable forms of agriculture. Calling for a ban on the basis of errors in the registration and regulatory process overseen by the EPA seems like a bit of a knee jerk reaction. The study based in canada was certainly limited but tens of thousands of colonies including borderbeeman's 10 have been kept in proximity of millions of acres of Imidacloprid treated OSR for many years now without noticable ill effect.

credit was given to the “National Geographic”.
Rather churlish that you could not admit to having learned something!

The National Geographic article was a well written piece. I have been interested in sustainable agriculture, specifically Permaculture, since the early 90s and have a fair collection of books and reading material from Mollison to Fukuoka. I used to attend conferences on sustainable agriculture and have visited quite a few projects promoting 'no dig' agriculture, permaculture, straw bale construction, legume breaks, crop rotation, lombricomposting and all the rest of it. I practice this stuff myself on a small scale as much as possible but have come to believe that a lot of the general claims are overblown. One author I know in Mexico shamelessly ripped off Bill Mollison's work and when I visited her project, all she had growing was a sad little patch of veg about 8 feet by 4 and she was extrapolating how to feed the world and use 'natural' pest control based on this, not to mention publishing several tomes. In her books she repeated many 'natural' forms of pest control which she had never actually trialled herself. I tested quite a few of the ideas and found that they didn't work at all. Lemon peel to deter leaf cutter ants? Nope. They carried it into the nest and ate it. Toasting ants and leaving them at the entrance to the nest. Nope. They were recycled. Sowing seeds according to moon phases. Sorry Mr. Steiner, nice try but a load of cr*p. A lot of sustainable agriculture works up to a point but manual labour limits things on a larger scale. There are only so many caterpillers a man can pick off and squish on a given day.

Eric McArthur

04-03-2011, 03:44 PM

Hi Jon
This extract reads very wide of your extremely (deliberately??) misleading interpretation.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Bee Source 25/1/11
Borderman wrote!:
I am a small scale hobby beekeeper in the Scottish Borders - on the banks of the River Tweed - a great salmon river. I started keeping bees about 15 years ago and I have just ten hives currently - I try and breed all new queens every year, and for the last two years I have had to do that because ALL my queens are getting superseded within a month or two of starting to lay, even when they are laying good brood patterns and all looks good.
The only theory I have is that I am in the middle of a huge arable crops area - lots and lots of oilseed rape (canola) which is laced, wall to wall with Imidacloprid.
The winter was and still is affecting colony survival – February took its toll on the three mentioned!
.................................................. .................................
Eric wrote:
We need fewer chemicals not a constantly increasing arsenal...
.................................................. ..........................
Jon wrote:
I agree, but it needs careful analysis and careful planning to move towards more sustainable forms of agriculture.
Calling for a ban on the basis of errors in the registration and regulatory process overseen by the EPA seems like a bit of a knee jerk reaction.
.................................................. ...............................

The prose under refutes your “Knee jerk” argument.
The goal is “ moderation with due consideration”.
A good start would be to clean out all NGO and government depts, which have ‘revolving door’ Monanto ex- employees in places of executive office. There are too many highly placed individuals in positions involving gross ‘Conflict of Interest”!
‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ ’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ ’’’’’’’’’’’’
"The environment has become the experiment and all of us – not just bees and beekeepers – have become the experimental subjects," said Tom Theobald, a 35-year beekeeper. "In an apparent rush to get products to the market, chemicals have been routinely granted "conditional" registrations. Of 94 pesticide active ingredients released since 1997, 70% have been given conditional registrations, with unanswered questions of unknown magnitude. In the case of clothianidin those questions were huge.

To their credit, EPA scientists raised serious concerns in that document and
called for strong label language if clothianidin was to be
approved for use.
“The possibility of toxic exposure to nontarget pollinators
through the translocation of clothianidin residues that
result from seed treatment (corn and canola) has prompted
EFED [Environmental Fate and Effects Division] to require
fi eld testing that can evaluate the possible chronic exposure
to honey bee larvae and queen
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Read this leaked document and be petrified that this agency still authorised clothianidin.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention
PC Code: 044309
Date: November 2nd, 2010
DP Barcodes: 378994, 377955
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Jon

04-03-2011, 04:03 PM

Hi Jon
This extract reads very wide of your extremely (deliberately??) misleading interpretation.

Eric I posted a link to his own words. Anyone interested can read it for themselves.
He made this post at the same time as he was sending press releases about 'bee holocausts' to the UK press. I would call that a tad misleading.
Even with the loss of 3 colonies over a 3 year period that is an impressive survival rate. (in the middle of seed treated OSR)
I made the point to highlight that bees in the middle of oil seed rape generally do very well. As I said above, the early supersedure thing is happening with or without exposure to Imidacloprid.
We have had three bad summers in a row which explains poor honey harvests without any need to blame your favourite pesticide.
Do you know the expression regarding a man with a hammer in his hand - everything starts to look like a nail.
Thus every bee problem starts to get blamed on Imidacloprid by those who see the world through that particular prism.

Read this leaked document and be petrified that this agency still authorised clothianidin.

The document was not 'leaked' It was requested and access was granted.

Irrespective of a limited trial in canada, we now have 8 years of field observation on how bees forage on millions of acres of OSR.
There is not a single field study which has shown that this has been detrimental to bees.
Use logic Eric. If seed treated OSR is bad for bees, why do they do so well on it.
Why do commercial beekeepers move colonies to the rape fields in April. Are they daft? Turkeys voting for Christmas?

And why have UK colony numbers tripled in the last two and a bit years at the same time as the acreage of OSR has risen in the UK?

Jon wrote:
One of the main conclusions of the Engelsdorp study you mentioned above was that the highest levels of chemicals found in bee colonies were the chemicals put there by the beekeeper as part of varroa control. So who is the bad guy here?
.................................................. .....
Not true! Their ground breaking finding was a lethal synergistic relationship between imidacloprid and Nosema sp..

Eric, you need to check back through your last few posts as you have been challenged to back up several of your claims and have not done so. And I still don't know who you mean by 'vested interest prophets' Do you mean those who happen to disagree with you by any chance?

gavin

04-03-2011, 07:34 PM

One interpretation of a lack of so called detoxification genes in the honeybee is likely to translate to less pesticide detoxification capability, which could explain the honeybees’ unusual sensitivity to pesticides. This is likely to affect the honeybee’s ability to respond to multiple stressors, including those from beekeepers.

I wonder if this is true. Not getting at you Alex, but if I remember right this oft-repeated view comes from comparing the Drosophila and Apis genomes, when it was noted that Apis has fewer genes for detoxification systems. As I geneticist, I'll be first to point out that simplistic assumptions like this can lead you astray. It isn't the number of genes that matters, its what you do with them that counts! Number of genes can be due to complexity of gene expression patterns ('always-on' is simple and easy to arrange) or just due to the evolutionary history of the whole group of species.

Amongst the neonicotinoids thiacoprid is generally regarded as fairly safe for bees, but lethal for OSR pollen beetles which have been becoming resistant to the pyrethroid treatments.

The bottom line is the actual sensitivity of the bee. Beekeepers have been throwing alarming quantities of pesticides into hives to control mites with no obvious deleterious effects. The pyrethroids used are the self same compounds sprayed on OSR flowers to kill pollen beetles. The organosphosphate coumaphos used in some parts of the world is also used as sheep dip in some parts of the world - to kill things like warble fly. Bees are really quite robust creatures compared to other insects, and I think that is due to the diverse natural toxins they meet in pollen and nectar. They have evolved to cope with such challenges.

G.

AlexJ

04-03-2011, 08:46 PM

Not a problem Gavin, I'm glad the debate is able to draw on such expertise. I'm here to learn and certainly don't mind being corrected and prodded in the right direction.

Though the topic appears to be current in research circles; no less a weighty tome as the SBK carries an article 'Are Pesticides and Miticides Contributing to Honeybee Decline' by Dr Christopher Connolly this month:

"However, bees are thought to have a poor immune system and a poor ability to rid themselves of accumulated toxins."...

Having read the article I'm not sure how this thought may, or may not, be factored into his research?

Alex

gavin

05-03-2011, 12:39 AM

That is a hypothesis that came from May Berenbaum and her associates, highlighted in the honeybee genome publication in the journal Nature and elsewhere. The grant that she got on the back of these concerns finished a year ago:

http://www.reeis.usda.gov/web/crisprojectpages/213266.html

They did not detect any elevation of the expression of detoxification genes in CCD colonies (strongly hinting no role for pesticides in CCD), whereas there were other things going on that pointed to virus infection.

As we have discussed, the published data from the States on pesticide residues in hive samples does not suggest a link between pesticide exposure (farm pesticides and beekeeper pesticides in normal, working colonies) and CCD either.

The specific detoxifying genes and enzymes in honeybees that confer resistance to some of the pesticides effective on other insects have been identified:

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1603/0022-0493-99.4.1046

The comments on the supposed high susceptibility of honeybees to pesticides, because of fewer detoxification genes than are found in Drosophila, were picked up and widely used by anti-pesticide campaigners. This may be where Dr Connolly picked up this idea in the first place although the idea is published in the scientific literature too.

Has all this been factored into his research plans? I doubt it. Someone should ask him. The 'poor ability to rid themselves of accumulated toxins' is dubious. Imidacloprid in bees has a half life of a few hours, and as I've just stated there are detoxifying enzymes for the pyrethroids. These chemical insults are short-term insults. If the bees can break down the pesticides then they can avoid their harmful effects, as long, of course, as the pesticides are not irreversibly bound to their targets. Dr Tennekes says that they are, but this seems contrary to the published evidence too.

Gavin

Jon

05-03-2011, 01:15 AM

The comments on the supposed high susceptibility of honeybees to pesticides, because of fewer detoxification genes than are found in Drosophila, were picked up and widely used by anti-pesticide campaigners.

That's where I have read this claim about bees lacking detox genes, on biobees.com, the buglife report, and other websites dedicated to campaigning against pesticides. It's one of those issues I would like to see clarified as the people who pick up this kind of claim often don't understand the science and are using it for propaganda purposes.

Interestingly enough DEFRA seem to think there is a need to clarify a lot of the misinformation.

The Buglife report relies heavily on data from imidacloprid but neonicotinoids vary widely in their properties. Imidacloprid, thiacloprid, acetamiprid, and nitenpyram are first-generation chloropyridinyl compounds whereas more recent developments have provided the second-generation chlorothiazolyl derivatives such as thiamethoxam and clothianidin. It is also important to be clear when the discussions are about spray application versus seed treatments due to the wide variations in resulting levels of exposure.

The report states that there is greater ecological risk from long- term exposure from systemic treatments than direct exposure. However the report contains no data to support this- the only relevant data would be those showing long term field exposure to systemics has caused effects. The recent Tennkes (2010)17 paper has also raised this issue and a response has also recently been published Maus and Nauen (2010).18 On the contrary, available data for imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam show no such effects’ including a number of field and semi-field tests identified in the report to assess the side effects of imidacloprid seed treatment.

The discussion on imidacloprid in the report refers to many laboratory studies but does not take into account the number of field studies which have shown no adverse impacts on honeybee colonies when studies are conducted under realistic conditions and take account of all routes of exposure (including flowering weeds) plus sub-lethal and chronic effects. The report suggests that imidacloprid inhibits the ability of the queen to lay down fat reserves and reduce survival but there are no data to support this assertion.

Thus, detailed field studies have been conducted for the neonicotinoid seed treatments using realistic scenarios (crops/treatments rates) and endpoints, e.g. colony level assessment of effects, foraging activity during the registration process and adverse effects have not been observed.

Certainly the rates used on seed should be quoted alongside the actual levels in pollen and nectar to assess their representativeness to UK uses as without this extrapolation is difficult.

https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/beebase/downloadNews.cfm?id=105

It will be very interesting to see how the study mentioned in the Scottish beekeeper magazine which is relying on data input from lay, ie non scientific, Scottish beekeepers is taking all these variables re exposure rate to pesticides and family of pesticides into account.

AlexJ

05-03-2011, 09:27 AM

Gavin,

Thanks for the link. I’m going to keep an open mind about this at the moment and while I agree that there is a cloud of ‘propaganda’ as Jon describes it I don’t agree that those picking up the topic are beyond understanding the overlying concepts from which to carry out there own research and develop a greater understanding of the topic. Albeit I agree the use they put the information to can often be questionable.

That’s not so surprising given the manner in which the debate has developed into two camps over the years. The way in which key stakeholders manage and present information to their own ends is noted in,

Uncertainty: Cause or effect of stakeholders' debates? Analysis of a case study: The risk for honeybees of the insecticide Gaucho® Laura Maxim, Jeroen P. van der Sluijs, Science of the Total Environment 376 (2007) 1–17

As for honeybee genetic robustness it was the Nature report that I had picked up on initially,

Insights into social insects from the genome of the honeybee Apis mellifera The Honeybee Genome Sequencing Consortium, Vol 443|26 October 2006

Which carries amongst much detail, information such as that contained in these sections:

Immunity and disease resistance

…This reduction spans every step in the immune response from pathogen recognition to immune effectors, and implies a reduced flexibility in the abilities of honeybees to recognize and resist pathogens. The results suggest that honeybees use novel immune pathways, are poorly defended against pathogens at the individual level, and/or have immune systems that are narrowly focused on a relatively small group of coevolved pathogens….

Anti-xenobiotic defence mechanisms

It seems that the size of the major detoxifying gene families is smaller in the honeybee, making the species unusually sensitive to certain pesticides133–136. Compared with Anopheles and Drosophila137, the honeybee has 30–50% fewer genes encoding the carboxylesterase (CCE), cytochrome P450 (P450) and glutathione S-transferase (GST) enzymes that are principally responsible for the metabolism of pesticides and in which the great majority of metabolic resistance mutations have been found in other species of invertebrates138….

For me it’s not a matter of evidence for against, it’s a matter of developing a sustainable and efficient pesticide/miticide regime that weighs as many of the competing factors and risks together to support agriculture, (and the honeybee). It may be that to deliver these aims we have to accept the honeybee will be at relatively greater risk than other animals, or we as beekeepers tailor our chemical interventions to mitigate that risk for the greater good of the community.

While I don’t doubt for a minute that the underlying science is complex and understanding detail is key, but the raft of contributors who have signed off on this report surely give it a level of credence to be fully considered and debated. I certainly don’t see the report as misinformation in relation to the implied genetic ‘weakness’ in honeybees, it may be incorrect, it may at the moment be opinion but it certainly seems well founded in a degree of scientific rigour (albeit dated 2006).

If this is the case then I believe the genetic robustness of the honeybee should form part of the scope of any overarching research project into the effects of pesticides/miticides on honeybees.

As an aside, I’m sure there will be a sizable audience in Scotlandwell to pick up on these points when Christopher Connolly speaks on his research initiative in April.

Jon

05-03-2011, 10:04 AM

Hi Alex
One of the key pennies to drop with me with regard to the Neonicotinoid debate is that almost all the evidence highlighting the dangers is lab based, mostly involving caged bee studies. (Bonmatin and Suchail, Girolami's guttation water work, Alaux et al nosema interacions, Pettis's unpublished nosema interactions, for example.) On the other hand, none of the real world field studies carried out by different research teams in many different countries have demonstrated harmful effects.
The main Neonicotinoid disasters cited, such as the 2008 bee deaths in Germany were due to misapplication of the product due to a problem with the binding agent in a specific incident during seed drilling. There have been similar incidents in Canada as well.
This is probably one of the main causes of polarization, as most anti neonicotinoid campaigners are relying exclusively on the lab work and those who have focused on the real world application of neonicotinoids are not detecting major problems. The contamination levels described by Henk Tennekes sound like there has been misuse or misapplication of the product.
There were also very high levels of neonicotinoids found in The US associated with citrus trees. Gavin wrote about it here (http://www.britishbee.org.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=23334&postcount=1).

Eric McArthur

05-03-2011, 03:39 PM

Hi All
Jon wrote:
There is not a single field study which has shown that this has been detrimental to bees.
.................................................. ...............
Try Cresswell!
“The bio-scientist from the University of Exeter suggests that ”field realistic levels of these chemicals in nectar will have no lethal effects but will reduce expected ‘foraging‘ performance in honey bees by 6 to 20%”.
.................................................. ................................................
Scale that up to herds of cattle, flocks of sheep etc and a true picture of events emerges!
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Jon wrote:
Eric, you need to check back through your last few posts as you have been challenged to back up several of your claims and have not done so.
................................................
Remind me!
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;
Alex wrote:
One interpretation of a lack of so called detoxification genes in the honeybee is likely to translate to less pesticide detoxification capability, which could explain the honeybees’ unusual sensitivity to pesticides. This is likely to affect the honeybee’s ability to respond to multiple stressors, including those from beekeepers.

Gavin wrote:

I wonder if this is true.
.................................................. ............
Hi Alex
Don’t let him kid you!
Eric
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Gavin wrote;
The bottom line is the actual sensitivity of the bee. Beekeepers have been throwing alarming quantities of pesticides into hives to control mites with no obvious deleterious effects.
.................................................. ......................
What a load of garbage! Ignorant beekeepers and the pesticide multis have been killing bees for yonks!
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Jon wrote:
The main Neonicotinoid disasters cited, such as the 2008 bee deaths in Germany were due to misapplication of the product due to a problem with the binding agent in a specific incident during seed drilling.
..................................................
The bee mortality caused in Germany was the result of criminal negligence. The design of the planters used was known to be flawed even as early as 2003. Being so well read both yourself and Gavin will already no doubt be aware of the Italian work done at that time.
.....;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;

AlexJ

05-03-2011, 05:24 PM

Jon,

Thanks for the link; I agree that most of the reports I have read, and referred to, trying to replicate field conditions do not indicate the level of harm to honeybees that may require banning of neonicotinoids at the moment.

For those trying to come up to speed with the topic you are generally confronted with a barrage of emotion (nothing wrong with that in moderation) and very often well presented, media savvy reports just as often grounded in little hard evidence. On the other hand much of the serious work is contained in quite technical and scientific reports. I’m sure there’s an opportunity for someone/organisation to debunk many of them to produce something worthwhile and meaningful for beekeepers, BBKA/SBA?

Eric,
I'm still trying to come to terms with beekeepers' interventions and agricultural pesticide use from the sub lethal effects noted in many reports. It certainly doesn't appear at the moment as black and white as you argue. In time I believe you will have to accept some responsibility for the treatment regime you impose on your bees and the likely affect that may have on their health. As for extrapolating the effects on honeybees to humans, sheep and cows etc that appears to be even less well documented.

In all it’s been an interesting and informative week or so for me – and for many others by the numbers of viewers the thread has had.
Alex

Jon

05-03-2011, 06:35 PM

Jon wrote:
There is not a single field study which has shown that this has been detrimental to bees.
.................................................. ...............
Try Cresswell!
“The bio-scientist from the University of Exeter suggests that ”field realistic levels of these chemicals in nectar will have no lethal effects but will reduce expected ‘foraging‘ performance in honey bees by 6 to 20%”.

Not a field study Eric, Cresswell reviewed existing studies.

Abstract here (http://biosciences.exeter.ac.uk/staff/index.php?web_id=james_cresswell&tab=pubs).

Scale that up to herds of cattle, flocks of sheep etc and a true picture of events emerges!
Lost me again. What on earth do you mean?

Eric, you need to check back through your last few posts as you have been challenged to back up several of your claims and have not done so.

Remind me!

(Hmmmmm! Pettis and van Engeldorp did not think they found a synergistic link between Nosema and imidacloprid. They proved the link!
Eric!
Did they really? I would love to see a link to that paper. Sounds interesting.

vested interest prophets...
who are they?

There seems to be a very strong pro pesticide opinion in this thread.
who is pro pesticide?

Imidacloprid is 5000 times more toxic than DDT
How do you measure that?

After 10 years of research (C Maus et al Bulletin Insectology 2003 number 56, pages 51-57), it seems unlikely that imidacloprid was responsible for the French bee deaths.
.................................................. ....
Eric wrote:
On the paper itself it is stated that Maus et al work for Bayer, the manufacturer of imadicloprid, in Germany and France. Form your own opinions!
An allegation of corruption. Proof?

5 parts per billion of Clothianidin in solution will kill any bee
Reference?

The bee mortality caused in Germany was the result of criminal negligence. The design of the planters used was known to be flawed even as early as 2003.
Who was charged with criminal negligence? Who knew the design of the planters was flawed in 2003?

Some of those statements are clearly nonsense. Others may or may not be true. I don't know.
When you make claims or worse still, allegations of corruption you need to provide evidence or references.

Eric McArthur

06-03-2011, 02:02 PM

Eric wrote:
The bio-scientist from the University of Exeter suggests that ”field realistic levels of these chemicals in nectar will have no lethal effects but will reduce expected ‘foraging‘ performance in honey bees by 6 to 20%”.
Scale that up to herds of cattle, flocks of sheep etc and a true picture of events emerges!
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Alex wrote:
As for extrapolating the effects on honeybees to humans, sheep and cows etc that appears to be even less well documented.
.................................................. ...............
Think laterally! See under!
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Jon wrote:
Lost me again. What on earth do you mean? See above re., "Thinking"!
.................................................. ........................................
See above re., "Thinking"!
I would challenge you to extrapolate this 20% deficit to a herd of cattle, flock of sheep or a pig or poultry farm and tell me that the farmers concerned, knowing the substance which was causing this performance loss, would accept the loss without demur – I think not! It is an accepted fact that the honey bee colony is a complete organism; similar to cow, sheep, chicken, even we humans; why then should we treat the honey bee so shabbily and tolerate this ‘correctable’ stress on their existence as husbanded farming stock?

.................................................. .................................................. ..................................
Eric wrote:
The bee mortality caused in Germany was the result of criminal negligence. The design of the planters used was known to be flawed even as early as 2003. Being so well read both yourself and Gavin will already no doubt be aware of the Italian work done at that time.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;
Jon wrote:
Reference?
Who was charged with criminal negligence? Who knew the design of the planters was flawed in 2003?

When you make claims or worse still, allegations of corruption you need to provide evidence or references.
.................................................. .......................................
Check “ Bulletin of Insectology 56(1): 69 -72, 2003, ISSN 1721-8861” – if you can! All references to the paper have been removed from ISSN 1721-8861. Papers submitted up to page 68 and those after page 72 are intact! I’d be interested if you can source the paper in this particular bulletin!
.................................................. ............................................
Read Jeffrey Smith’s, “Seeds of Deception”. The evidence is there for all to see!
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Jon wrote:
Did they really? I would love to see a link to that paper. Sounds interesting.
.................................................. ....................
Pettis and van Engeldorp in America and highlighted in the French TV documentary filmed at Apimondia 2009, have proved beyond doubt that the neonicotinoids are exerting an adverse pressure on honey bee survival and performance. Gavin has the DVD.
................................................

gavin

06-03-2011, 02:17 PM

Pettis and van Engeldorp in America and highlighted in the French TV documentary filmed at Apimondia 2009, have proved beyond doubt that the neonicotinoids are exerting an adverse pressure on honey bee survival and performance. Gavin has the DVD.
................................................

Beyond doubt?! They commented that they had data which resembled the Alaux data on Nosema and imidacloprid. It seems that they had this data years ago and have struggled to get it published. In the context of previous excitements over IAPV and CCD (which *did* get through the journal review process but has since been seriously questioned) then some caution is required, especially considering the complete lack of a dose-response in the Alaux data.

The only folk who consider the relationship 'beyond doubt' seem to be the usual small group of campaigners and McCarthy of the Independent.

Jon

06-03-2011, 04:35 PM

Read Jeffrey Smith’s, “Seeds of Deception”. The evidence is there for all to see!
LOL
Is that the best you can do? Point me towards a book ranting about GMOs. You forgot to remind me to use google.

Looks like you need another reminder Eric.
That load of bluster printed above doesn't answer any of the claims you made.
If you make claims or allegations you need to provide evidence.
Do your homework before posting stuff from dodgy websites and press releases.
It might be good enough for moraybeedinosaurs or biobees.com but I think a higher standard of evidence is required here.
I was reading a thread on biobees a couple of days ago where they were claiming that Bayer introduced varroa to the UK so they could increase sales of Bayvarol!!, and another one where they claimed Bayer was deliberately killing off the honey bee so they could replace it with a Bayer patented GM bee. No evidence of course but why bother when we know Bayer is the great Satan. Let's just say what we like and then slap each other on the back about the badness of them all.
I think most people can tell the difference between fact and pure drivel.

The other contributors to this thread are posting useful information and providing links to the source.

Check “ Bulletin of Insectology 56(1): 69 -72, 2003, ISSN 1721-8861” – if you can! All references to the paper have been removed from ISSN 1721-8861.

PS. here is the link to the pages (http://www.2as4nature.com/uploads/3/0/8/6/3086450/vol56-2003-069-072greatti.pdf). No conspiracy Eric. I suppose you thought Bayer black ops agents had nobbled the editor of the Bulletin of Insectology.

Here is a paragraph from the conclusion - which highlights the need to be careful with seed dressings and gluing agents. As already mentioned, in the German incident there was a problem with the gluing agent. These things should not happen, nor should any industrial or farming accident but as you must be aware, with the best will in the world accidents sometimes happen. I don't hear you callling for a ban on motor vehicles given that it has been known for quite some time that they can be dangerous when misused, even to innocent 3rd parties. I believe there were two or three similar seed dressing incidents in Canada but this problem is not a general feature or problem of seed drilling, as far as I know. Again, if you think it is a general problem, do present the evidence.

The preliminary results obtained in 2001 indicate that,
since both the paper filters located in the fan drain of the
pneumatic seed drill and the flower and grass samples
collected near the fields contain pesticide residues, then
corn sowing must be considered a potentially dangerous
operation in terms of general environmental pollution. It
is possible that the spread of the active ingredient in the
environment during sowing operations could cause serious
damage in bee colonies, since bees are well known
to be sensitive to this product.
These results could suggest certain practical improvements
for the Gaucho® dressed corn seed production;
in particular technical innovations should be introduced
to optimize the adherence of the pesticide to the
seeds (i.e. better gluing).

Eric McArthur

07-03-2011, 05:12 PM

Hi All
Gavin wrote:
The only folk who consider the relationship 'beyond doubt' seem to be the usual small group of campaigners and McCarthy of the Independent.
.................................................. ...........
The Avaaz petition registered 1 250 000 signatures for a ban of the neonicotinoids
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Jon wrote:
PS. here is the link to the pages. No conspiracy Eric. I suppose you thought Bayer black ops agents had nobbled the editor of the Bulletin of Insectology.
.................................................. ............................
Where did the ‘conspiracy’ come from – not from me? Conspiracy theory seems to be high profile these days. I initially thought that Gavin , yourself and perhaps Jonathon had a direct line to God but I am more inclined now to the persuasion that Moses is the source.
However so saying I have Googled - “Bulletin of Insectology 56(1): 69 -72, 2003, ISSN 1721-8861” no less than 10 times in the hope that the permutation of items would eventually throw the item up – never happened! There must be a t least 200+ kibitzers following this thread – it would be interesting to get feed- back on how successful were their attempts to raise the offending piece using the ‘Bulletin’ info given!
I never cease to be astonished at your lack of regard for the well being of the honey bee when a conflict of interests arises between the bee and the forces working against her welfare. My conflict with the forces which seem to supply your dynamic is solely generated by a deep concern for this small insect – nothing less, no axe to grind, no hidden agenda - just a need to fight its corner and foster its existence against forces which do not appear to have her best interests at heart.

gavin

07-03-2011, 06:25 PM

A nice retort Eric. OK then, the usual small group of campaigners, the Award-winning journalist at the Independent, plus over a million signatories to an international petition.

Fighting corners is all well and good, but when the fight distracts and detracts from fighting the likely real issues then it is time to think again.

Jon

07-03-2011, 06:45 PM

I never cease to be astonished at your lack of regard for the well being of the honey bee when a conflict of interests arises between the bee and the forces working against her welfare.

Let me gently remind you again then - a vote to ban neonicotinoids is effectively a vote to bring back the older families of pesticides which are generally regarded as being less safe for the environment in general and people in particular.
Even if one's position is to ban all pesticides, and I know you don't take that extreme position like some of the campaigners, the banning of neonicotinoids will de facto lead to greater use of the older ones.
I don't think you are on any higher moral ground re. the honey bee than Gavin, myself or anyone else posting on this thread. Everyone is concerned about the welfare of the honey bee and the disagreement is about the best way to promote bee heath and beekeeping in general. I think the anti neonicotinoid campaign is a complete red herring and very likely sucks funding away from other areas of research which would be more fruitful. The idea of having to be on the side of the honeybee, or on the side of Bayer is a false dichotomy in my humble opinion.

Neils

07-03-2011, 07:04 PM

Citing an emotively worded Internet petition is hardly "general consensus". I cite again the continuing campaigns to ban the dangerous chemical dihydrogen monoxide as ample "proof" that if you word something emotively enough that people will stick their name to it and that one's being doing the rounds in one form or another for over a decade.

Backing an Internet campaign is no evidence that people have any real comprehension of what they're apparently supporting.

Jon

07-03-2011, 07:33 PM

And the wording of the Avaaz petition was too rich even for the Bumblebee Conservation Trust who put out a series of corrections!
But I am sure every one of the 1,250,000 signatories checked the background information carefully rather than just signing a piece of paper which effectively stated, if you like bees and want to save them, just sign here.

Avaaz is a 6.5-million-person global campaign network that works to ensure that the views and values of the world's people shape global decision-making.

Yesterday they launched a campaign to urge the US and EU to suspend neonicotinoid pesticides.

BBCT share concerns about growing evidence suggesting that some pesticides, including neonicotinoids, are harmful to bees.

However, there are some statements in the Avaaz summary which, based on BBCT's understanding of the scientific evidence, are not well supported. This weakens their position and threatens to make hard-won signatures less valuable. Furthermore, they make a strong case for pesticides being the root cause of global bee declines. In some instances pesticides may be seriously affecting honeybees, but it is BBCT's view that many of our wild bee species have declined primarily due to habitat loss and other factors, besides pesticide use. With honeybees the situation is also more complicated than the Avaaz literature implies. Disease has a significant role in ongoing declines.

BBCT have contacted Avaaz and offered to help them reach a more robust campaign stance. To date we have not heard back from them.

http://www.bumblebeeconservation.org.uk/avaaz.html

Neils

07-03-2011, 07:34 PM

http://www.snopes.com/science/dhmo.asp

For the snopes take on it.

Jon

07-03-2011, 07:59 PM

Moreover, Zohner's target audience was ninth-graders, a group highly susceptible to allowing peer pressure to overwhelm critical thinking. Thrust any piece of paper at the average high school student with a suggestion about what the "correct" response to it should be, and peer pressure pretty much assures you'll get the answer you're looking for. Someone that age isn't very likely to read a friend's petition calling for the banning of whale hunting and critically evaluate the socio-economic and environmental impact of such a regulation. Instead, he's probably going to say to himself, "This issue is obviously important to my friend, and he must have some good reasons for circulating the petition, so I'll sign it.

LOL
Apart from ninth graders, the peer pressure is obviously strong on biobees.com and moraybeedinosaurs.
Any excuse to post the Life of Eric, I mean Life of Brian clip again!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVygqjyS4CA

Neils

07-03-2011, 09:35 PM

Indeed. It perhaps also explains the relatively recent "so you hate our troops/Like Saddam/Love Pesticides/want to see our country bankrupt" etc etc etc school of debate on the internet. If we put the argument that x kills bees, and bees are good. If you won't agree with it then you must hate bees.

I still want to know, and still cannot get a straight answer to the question:

If we ban Neonicotinoids, what takes their place?

The obvious answer seems to me pretty much everything that was being used before, all of which are classified as extremely toxic to honey bees and much else besides, so what do we really change by banning Neonicotinoids?

Eric McArthur

07-03-2011, 10:40 PM

Hi All
Does all this prose above detract from, or excuse the fact that 11 500 honey bee colonies were killed due to the use of planting machines, which had been demonstrated to have ‘fatal’ flaws, five full years before the German catastrophe occurred?
.................................................. ............................

Nellie wrote:
If we ban Neonicotinoids, what takes their place?
.................................................. ...................................
Perhaps a rationale of well regulated, moderate application of pesticide substances, based on proven need of application instead of the ”hard sell” by the multi’s sales' forces, whose only consideration is “the more we sell the bigger our profits” – and who gives a damn about the long term consequences anyway?

Neils

07-03-2011, 11:10 PM

Perhaps a rationale of well regulated, moderate application of pesticide substances, based on proven need of application instead of the ”hard sell” by the multi’s sales' forces, whose only consideration is “the more we sell the bigger our profits” – and who gives a damn about the long term consequences anyway?

The petition doesn't ask for that, it calls for an immediate ban on neonicotinoids and nothing more.

How do you quantify proven need of application rather than splash it all over, just in case?

Jon

07-03-2011, 11:36 PM

Hi All
Does all this prose above detract from, or excuse the fact that 11 500 honey bee colonies were killed..

Not at all. I hope those responsible were made to pay for it.

planting machines, which had been demonstrated to have ‘fatal’ flaws, five full years before the German catastrophe occurred?

I take it you are now proposing a ban on motor vehicles then. The dangers have been known for years.

Perhaps a rationale of well regulated, moderate application of pesticide substances, based on proven need of application instead of the ”hard sell” by the multi’s sales' forces, whose only consideration is “the more we sell the bigger our profits” – and who gives a damn about the long term consequences anyway?

Eric, that is gibberish.

Stromnessbees

08-03-2011, 01:51 PM

I never thought the day would come, but here we go ... I am questioning the banning of a pesticide:

An old fashioned, effective and rather harmless pesticide is to be removed from the international market.
Why?

It seems that the big corporations would rather see the sale of their products than of those that countries like India can produce cheaply themselves.

http://whybanendosulfan.org/why-ban-endosulfan.htm

from that site:

579

gavin

08-03-2011, 10:39 PM

Well, there's a first! An NGO (or is it a private individual) running an internet campaign to *keep* a pesticide, and Doris joining in. I'll have to go for a lie down. :p

Is it the corporation-bashing that is important to people or is it mostly a worry about chemicals per se?

Jon

08-03-2011, 10:50 PM

There is a thread running on beesource on the same pesticide.

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=251333&highlight=india

Stromnessbees

09-03-2011, 12:58 PM

The data that I quoted were from Punjab Agricultural University, so I hope that they can be trusted.

It does make me more than a bit suspicous if a company (in this case Bayer) sells a product for 50 years with nobody batting an eyelid; and when there is no more money to be made form it and it is in competition with more profitable pesticides it suddenly is found to be highly toxic.:confused:

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-03-03/pune/28650618_1_endosulfan-sharad-joshi-pesticide

... multinational pesticide companies, which championed Endosulphan for many decades, have developed newer molecules which offer better margins for them. So they are making attempts to have Endosulphan banned everywhere so that they can push the more profitable products...

... various expert committees, including the Dubey committee and the Mahi committee appointed by the central government, have concluded that there is no established causal relationship between Endosufan and these health issues.

Union agriculture minister Sharad Pawar also has made a statement in the house, during the recent session of the Lok Sabha, that there is no evidence of Endosulfan having caused any health problems and India will support use of the pesticide...

... and just in case anybody wonders: No, I am not sponsored by the Indian Government or anybody else for posting here.:cool:

Eric McArthur

09-03-2011, 06:00 PM

Hi All
Doris has a valid point regarding the “rock and a hard place” for Indian farmers relative to the economics of Endosulfan – if the health hazards are as the Indian authorities state, viz: http://whybanendosulfan.org/why-ban-endosulfan.htm - then the moral issue has also been answered relative to the use of this pesticide.
If Monsanto et al win the day and endosulfan is banned and Indian farmers are bankrupted; do the banning authorities then take the moral high ground and postulate much damage to health has been avoided – against a background of massive death due to farmer suicide and starvation of an already impoverished rural population?
I would hazard that morality and concern for the health and prosperity of India has little to do with the present move to rid the world of “nasties”, which make endosulfan look like asprin – viz-“... under Codex Alimentarius , which is sponsored by the BIG MULTI “Seven of the following nine chemicals have been reinstated for use; hexachlorobenzine, toxaphen, aldrin, dieldrin, pentachlorophenol, endrin and mirex”. These POPs (Persistent Organic Pollutants) number among the most dangerous substances known - to human health! Who is kidding who in this endosulfan smokescreen?
India’s agricultural economy has been attacked and devastated before by us, the European Union. Many years ago the EU decided to become self sufficient in vegetable oil, which was a major export commodity product of India, which incidentally was much more suited to the cultivation of such crops. The morality of this decision was highly questionable – but morality will not be found in the dictionaries used by big business or hard-nosed government.
So where does the phantasy end and the reality begin?
BIG CHEM might just be shooting itself in the foot; after they have bought out the ruined peasant farmers and commenced applying their neonicotinoids to their GM crops. If the arthropods and nectar feeding insects, along with other soil dwelling organisms begin to die off – the massive experiment which is going on in the developed world agriculture will thus be able to reach the unequivocal conclusion that the neonicotinoids are indeed the culprit for our present inexplicable arthropod “die – off” miseries. Where do we go then – another War (Peace!)Crimes Tribunal to put the pro neonicotinoid brigade behind bars and then just throw the cell keys away?
Damn good idea!

Eric

Jon

09-03-2011, 06:13 PM

In case anyone hasn't noticed, there appears to be a campaign launched by Indian chemical companies to retain production of this product. In the last 48 hours new posters have started discussions on Beesource, beekeepingforum, and doubtless other ones as well.

it suddenly is found to be highly toxic.

I don't think that is true Doris. They have been phasing it out worldwide for over ten years.

I suspect there may well be a motive to squeeze out the Indian producers of this pesticide but it really is toxic stuff, both to bees and to people. There have been hundreds of deaths associated with this product in both India and Africa.

There is even a victim support group - http://www.endosulphanvictims.org/

A study by Thanal, a public interest research, advocacy, education and action trust here, showed that honeybees had been affected and almost wiped out in the Endosufan-sprayed areas of Kasaragod district. It affected the tribal community of Koragas, most of whom used to collect honey from the forests, and traditional organised beekeepers. Many keepers had witnessed mass kill of bees following spraying of Endosulfan by the State-owned Plantation Corporation of Kerala.

http://www.hindu.com/2011/01/23/stories/2011012358860400.htm

This is what I mean with regard to a vote against neonicotinoids is a vote to bring back toxic crap like this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosulfan

Do some research folks. The mania to do down Bayer is making some people take leave of their senses. I don't doubt for a minute that Bayer has other more profitable products in the pipeline to replace this one but do you really want to keep it?
Al least the neonicotinoids have low toxicity towards people. Think of the poor agricultural workers who have to spray pesticides under 3rd world conditions.
You are now campaining for the right of Indian Chemical companies to expose the poorest people in india and Africa to these toxins. Bizarre.