Still happy with the status quo?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jon
Could be that other pollinators are more susceptible to neonicotinoids than honeybees.
The large size of a honeybee colony means that it can take a hit and recover relatively quickly.
The work by Dave Goulson at Stirling has suggested problems with bumblebees at dosages which do not seem to be a problem for honeybees.
So, Jon , you are maybe reluctantly accepting that neonics may be seriously harmful to, say, bumblebees.
There have been well over 30 trials now showing deleterious effects on honeybees.
Why are you not campaiging for the ban?
The argument that farmers will only revert to far worse insecticide treatments is defeatist.
Far better to argue for a positive way forward.
Above my pay grade ,but what the heck...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jon
Tell me about those 30 trials John if you have read them and tell me if they used field realistic doses and if not, why not. I have read a lot of them so would be quite happy to discuss some of the issues.
The alternative to neonicotinoid seed dressings is unlikely to be permaculture.
What do you propose to protect oil seed rape from pests such as pollen beetle?
I have an open mind and assess evidence as it comes in.
I could change my views tomorrow and it would not take a drop out of me.
Are you like that as well?
Believe it or not, I do not really have a crusade against neonics as my main agenda.
I mistrust the motives of companies producing lucrative products which may well have harmful effects to admit to them. I also think that so much money is often at stake that they will resort to all kinds of shenanigans to defend their products. Makes business sense. Is that a conspiracy theory?
As for the 30+ trials. You probably know them better than I do. Reduction in navigational skills, reduced proboscis control, lack of grooming ability, lowered immunity to various infections, dying foragers requiring job swaps within the colony etc(you fill in). What you might expect of a neurotoxin.
The question of dosages and duration is a difficult one for me to answer convincingly. Still, if a short, low-funded trial finds bad effects using rather high dosages because low doses would be harder to find a result with, is that sufficient to dismiss their findings? Maybe.
I think the onus should be on the companies to fund clearly independent reseach to demonstrate the effects of their multimillion dollar products on the environment.