There have been so many reports of bee poisonings by pesticides all over the world, that I can hardly keep up. I covered just a small handful of examples relating specifically to neonicotinoids on this page.
However, I received yet another alarming report from the Pollinator Stewardship Council, which I thought I would share - you can read the whole press release on this link (opens a new window).
To summarise some of the main points:
My concern with the ‘lesser extent’ portion of these hives is that it may take months for the effects of the pesticides to show themselves, even in surviving colonies – and perhaps especially if the pesticides were neonicotinoids.
Honey bees are super-organisms, meaning that to hamper or harm a part of the colony, ultimately hurts the whole.
In the case of Bayer CropScience, they fully acknowledge how their neonicotinoid imidacloprid insidiously kills another super-organism - termite colonies (which can reach 3 million individuals), by the varied methods of poison transference through the colony, combined with the sub-lethal effects of that poison. You can read more about this issue here.
Bayer CropScience state it may take 3 months to kill a colony of termites, but that the colony will not recover even after 2 years. What I am driving at here, is my concern that beekeepers may continue to see the effects of these poisonings for some time.
Causing further problems were farmers applying a mixture of two pesticides: an 'Insect Growth Regulator' (IGR) and a fungicide.
Insect Growth Regulators (a new class of insecticides), work by preventing insect larvae from moulting; so that the larvae never mature into adult insects. Unfortunately, bees are also insects and although they are not the intended targets of IGRs, they can be just as severely affected as the target pests.
I have previously addressed this ridiculous situation in a page about non-target insects and neonicotinoids. It is alarming how patents for pesticide products can provide significant hints about the potential effects on beneficial/harmless invertebrates.
Despite this, the intelligent public are expected to believe that these pesticides will actually discriminate between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ insects – even for example, ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Lepidoptera (moths & butterflies).
But then when you have a regulatory system consisting of tests largely devised by the pesticide manufacturers
.....perhaps coupled with compliant civil servants who just might be looking forward to a fat pay check with industry in a few years, what can we expect?
The Pollinator Stewardship Council and beekeepers met with the US EPA (pesticide regulatory body). They also wanted to discuss inadequate (pointless?) labelling that has little practical relevance (again, no surprises – regulatory field tests for pesticides don't have much practical relevance either).
The beekeepers and PSC have demanded a number of actions form the EPA. Already, demands for better labelling have effectively been dismissed.
Meanwhile, evidence suggests that neonicotinoids don’t improve crop yield, and that farmers waste their money:
Source: HEAVY COSTS: Weighing the Value of neonicotinoid insecticides in agriculture – Center for Food Safety. (report can be found at: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/neonic-efficacy_digital_29226.pdf).
Well, we already knew that in the UK, yields of oil seed rape in tonnes per hectare have barely altered at all over the years, including following switch from pyrethroids to neonicotinoids, according to DEFRA statistics.
Of course, some crop seeds are pre-treated with neonicotinoids, whilst others (including other pesticides), may be applied to the soil, leaves or roots.
Yet there is evidence generally that farmers apply pesticides even when 'pest levels' are below the recommended threshold (they are often advised by agronomists who work directly for, or on commission from manufacturers).
A study looking at pollen beetle prevalence (regarded as a ‘pest’) and the application of pesticides by ADAS (an Agricultural consultancy provider), is very revealing. As stated, farmers are only advised to treat against pollen beetle if levels exceed a certain threshold.
However, slide 9 in the presentation below shows that treatment with pesticide occurred, despite levels of pollen beetle well below the threshold:
But farmers could easily be worried by pollen beetle if they listen to Syngenta – ‘Pollen Beetle On The Move’:
Meanwhile, here is a paper on the ability of oilseed rape crops to recover from loss of buds, which helps put the ‘danger’ posed by pollen beetle in perspective (copy and paste into a new window):
But then, it seems to me that from the outset, farmers have been conned into lining the pockets of pesticide companies whilst humans have been forced to eat poisons, for years - read more:
It’s alarming that, using the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), agro-chemical companies expect to:
complexity of standards and bringing benefits to consumers
UPDATE 2017: the future of TTIP is uncertain.
I suspect that what this really means is, they intend making an even greater mockery of pesticide regulations if they can get away with it, so they can line their pockets yet further.
The benefits to you and me, will be increased food prices, and a duller planet to leave to future generations.
Copy and paste the following link into a new window to hear Syngenta’s John Atkin attempting to delude listeners with the idea that the EFSA review of neonicotinoid data from independent scientists was not really upto scratch:
Did he convince you?
No, I thought not….but he might convince a few friendly politicians and regulators.
Main Link: Neonicotinoids And Bees
COPYRIGHT 2010 - 2017: WWW.BUZZABOUTBEES.NET
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.