• EU agrees total ban on bee-harming pesticides
    29 replies, posted
About time too, but these things take time I guess. 6 months is a good time frame, can't expect much quicker than that. Great news.
Gonna watch bee movie in celebration
It's The Bee Movie, but as a summary of EU agricultural legislation.
Neonicotinoids again. This ban is ideologically driven and has little basis in scientific fact. I've had this discussion before here on Facepunch so i'll just drop this criticism by the Genetic Literacy Project. If you want to see the last discussion we had on the topic I'm sure you can find it. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/03/23/usda-study-concludes-neonics-not-driving-bee-deaths-as-white-house-set-to-announce-bee-revival-plan/ The tl;dr is that the studies supporting the ban use ridiculously large does of pesticide and that these dose levels have no place in real life conditions. This is backed by research in the field.
But if that's true, then we should be asking who benefits from it them being banned.
You're presuming it's financially motived. In this case it's a technophobic motivation from Greenpeace, and anti-GMO and anti-Monsanto groups.
Download, that article you linked appears to be misrepresenting the study it cites. This was in the comments (bolding mine): I would like to comment on the USDA study published by Dively et al. Your statement that "Even at the highest dose of pesticide exposure, the researchers found no difference in the performance of the treated and untreated hives. None." grossly misrepresents the findings of the paper referred to (http://journals.plos.org/pl.... While they indeed find no significant effects on foraging activity, they do find significant effects on colony health and survival such as: "However, Varroa infestations did show a significant dose response in both years, and the 100 μg/kg treated colonies in 2009 had statistically higher mite counts compared to counts in control colonies." and: "Of the 2010 colonies that did survived to October, most imidacloprid-exposed colonies had numerically fewer bees and less brood, beebread and honey going into the winter.100, 94.1, 82.4 and 82.4% of the colonies in the control, 5, 20 and 100 μg/kg treatment groups, respectively, survived to the last inspection in October. Although not statistically significant, this overall dose-dependent response strongly suggests that the higher imidacloprid doses had delayed sublethal effects on colony health." as well as their most striking finding: "Pooled over both years, colony survival in March averaged 82.4, 58.8, 47.1 and 52.9% in the control, 5, 20 and 100 μg/kg treatment groups, respectively" their conservative conclusion from this data is merely: "Given the weight of evidence presented here, we conclude that chronic exposure to imidacloprid at the higher range of field doses (20 to 100 μg/kg) in the pollen of certain treated crops could contribute to reduced overwintering success but the most likely encountered field doses of 5 μg/kg, especially relevant for seed-treated crops, have negligible effects on honey bee colony health." While the use of neonicotinoids can certainly not explain the observed patterns of colony collapse by itself (in fact, the authors of this study note that the symptoms of the lost imidacloprid-treated hives did not match CCD), we do not have sufficient evidence to rule it out as a contributing factor in this complex issue. I'm sure there is a heavy ideological factor to the ban, but it sounds like it's a little premature to be declaring neonicotinoids harmless.
Anti-Monsanto is an A+ in my books.
I never claimed they were harmless. Rather, people need to compare the effects of this type of pesticide to substitute pesticides. The reality is that farmers are still going to need pesticides and farmers should ideally be selecting the one that causes the least harm to non-target species. They are after-all chemicals designed to kill insects. Being blindly anti-Monsanto is stupid. If you want to criticise them, criticise them for things that actually have a basis in scientific or ethical fact.
Monsanto IS bad, its not a circle jerk. You'd have to be a complete lunatic to think that its just a "lol fuk monsanto" mentality.
It is a circle jerk if you blindly label everything they do as evil. It also makes you an idiot.
My dude, they can legally sue farmers who are next door to farmers using GMOs if even a bit of the DNA from the GMO plant is in their crop the next year. They create plants that can't grow seeds and thus keep the prices up and farmers completely trapped inside their thralls because its so expensive to use GMOs but for most its the only way to compete. And they've also demolished the genetic diversity of our crops so hard a single pandemic and we're starving for years. There are good things about GMOs, Monsanto has only brought the worst in them.
How is that related to this? At all? Declaring neonicotinoids evil because Monsanto makes (some of) them because Monsanto did something bad is not an appropriate chain of logic. Do you not see how stupid you sound there? Also [citation needed] they've destroyed genetic diversity. There are other biotech out there you know, who make GMO crops.
If I recall correctly, this a thoroughly debunked claim, perpetuated by anti-GMO nutters. That's pretty much begging the question: Farmers use GMO seeds because they're straight up better crops. 'Completely trapped inside their thralls' (?) is an evocative word salad to really say that farmers willingly buy their GMO seeds year after year because even after paying for the seeds, it's still more profitable than the non-GMO alternatives. Monsanto does get an awful lot more hate than they deserve.
Its not a debunked claim, its an actual liability since the patent office gave corporations the power to put trademarks on genetic markers. Also, its not that GMOs are bad, its that Monsanto's pricing and businsess strategy means farms can't switch to alternatives, even other GMO alternatives. Farmers in general end up taking a massive amount of debt due to abusive practices from farm equipment to their own crops. If seeds were produced, they could recoup the cost but that would eat into Monsanto's bottom line. Monsanto is incredibly predatory toward farmers, they abuse every ounce of hate they receive. The fact of the matter is that even in 'natural' crops the threat of reduce biodiversity is actually something that we haven't seriously studied. Also, there are other Biotechs out there, and they pull the same shit because Monsanto can get away with it. GMOs can be absolute god-send but we're over adopting before we even have even a quarter of the full knowledge to even remotely effectively deploy these crops. There isn't enough data about GMOs/Crops in general but there is data that suggests it and as such we should be looking into it.
Subsequent studies aimed at quelling the doubts of unrealistic exposure levels have found negative effects in bees, although not consistently so. See Science 356:1393; 1395. An earlier study found negative effects in wild bees as well (Nature 521:77). It's not as clear-cut as you make it out to be.
So, it's unrelated to Monsanto, so why bring it up? GMOs have been extensively studied and the scientific consensus is that they're safe. It's a scientific fact. It has been extensively studied in thousands of studies involving literally billions of animals over nearly three decades of use. As I said in another post, I don't doubt that an insect targeting pesticide can cause harm to non-target insects. The question asked should be if these cause more harm that other pesticides. Pesticide use is going to continue with or without Neonicotinoids, it's crucial to world food production, but we should ideally use a pesticide with the lowest effect on non-targeted species.
Which is pretty fuckin' evil.
Well yeah, but there are a bazillion other shading things many "reputable" companies do yet people are willing to ignore because it's either not to do with evil GMOs or it's not from one of the companies that Agent Orange.
bees dying was a tumblr meme why did everyone fall for it
It's related because it's much harder to foster diversity when all you're given is GMO crops that don't yield seeds than it is with standard crops, which you can crossbreed to fit the local environment. GMO based business models are based on a "one size fits all" ideology, which is not only dangerous in case of an epidemic but is also incompatible with more advanced, self-sufficient farming methods.
God damn I love bees so much
Maybe because it's actually a thing and not a "tumblr meme"?????
Capitalism means companies have to be horrible, because if one company isn't their competitior will be and they'll make more money by being amoral assholes.
Don't pesticides usually do more harm than good even the crop's case anyways?
It depends, iirc I don't think it harms certain crops that don't require pollination to harvest, but some can kill bees which end up hurting plants that do need pollination
*was a thing, but isn't really a problem like it was 5-10 years ago. and @ Monsanto frivolously suing farmers due to GMO contamination, I've looked around at this stuff before and it ain't really a thing, with Monsanto only suing farmers who had clearly deliberately grown their seeds illegitimately. While the whole patenting and aggressively lawyering their seeds is and entirely different bag of worms, the whole seed-floating-into-a-neighbouring-field-and-farmer-getting-sued thing, well, ain't a thing. Unless ya meant "can" as in "they technically could if they wanted" in which I highly doubt they'd win if they tried.
i never got this mentality. Yeah, there is probably worse companies out there. BUT, that doesn't mean we can't go after Monsanto, and also its about Bees. If the bees go, the world's ecosystem is going to go haywire.
Holy shit I was baffled as to why someone gave me a diamond for the OP, until I saw the username Thanks @TheKingofBees
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.