Video lecture about risk profile of neonicotinoid insecticides

[AlexJ]

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

[Neils]

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]

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]

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

For the snopes take on it.

[Jon]

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!!

[Neils]

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]

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]

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]

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.