EPA Knowingly Allowed Pesticide That Kills Bees 410
hether writes "The mystery of the disappearing bees has been baffling scientists for years and now we get another big piece in the puzzle. From Fast Company: 'A number of theories have popped up as to why the North American honey bee population has declined — electromagnetic radiation, malnutrition, and climate change have all been pinpointed. Now a leaked EPA document reveals that the agency allowed the widespread use of a bee-toxic pesticide, despite warnings from EPA scientists.' Now environmentalists and bee keepers are calling for an immediate ban of the pesticide clothianidin, sold by Bayer Crop Science under the brand name Poncho."
Re:Some Questions (Score:5, Informative)
Most of your questions are answered in TFA, and those that aren't, are thoroughly covered in the linked PDF (except for the political ones.) The short version is that the stuff propagates very easily through the environment and is toxic to bees even in very low doses.
Re:Some Questions (Score:4, Informative)
> I'm not a fan of pesticides but I won't deny that they increase food and crop yield.
Prove it. I don't believe this whatsoever.
There has been a growing of evidence showing that the overuse of pesticides has led to a *decline* in crop yields, not an increase.
See:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_5995.cfm
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/June/04060701.asp
Unless you are familiar with changes in farming techniques over time it's very very hard to have a substantive position on this. Since about 1960-1970 there has been a *huuuge* increase in the use of nitrogen fertilizers that essentially parallels the use of pesticides. Sadly there was a limit to how much nitrogen fixation can actually take place in the presence of pesticides. Keep in mind that nitrogen is required for plants to grow, nitrogen fixation is required for plants to use nitrogen and... research has now shown that pesticides interferes with nitrogen fixation.
I'm not making a broad claim one way or another, but the government clearly isn't researching the things they should be.
Re:Some Questions (Score:3, Informative)
There was an article posted on /. a while back that showed a two pronged attack on the bees by I think a mite and a pathogen that caused the death of whole hives.
This sounds like some anti-pesticide religious fanatic trying to whip up hysteria while trying to make the FDA and the pesticide industry look bad.
The FDA screens pesticides for how they will be used, how mobile the pesticide is and how long the residue lasts. If this was not done then cry foul.
This is what I could find in a few minutes searching http://www.thefederalregister.com/d.p/2006-12-13-E6-20898 [thefederalregister.com] I have not found the application for use as a seed coating but Bayer would have needed to go through a process to get that approved by the EPA.
Ah, here is the fact sheet http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/factsheets/clothianidin.pdf [epa.gov]
Re:Some Questions (Score:5, Informative)
There was a horizon program on the BBC here called "what's killing our bees?", which suggested that the only country not really affected (yet) was Australia, who have a roaring trade selling bees now.
That was 2 years ago. Yes, the UK is affected.
Re:Some Questions (Score:2, Informative)
The pesticide is a seed coating?
Some are sprays. There are actually dozens of different types, mostly due to the pharmaceutical companies' vast experience in slightly modifying known drugs in order to maintain patent coverage. This also means that, every time they create a new one, they get several years to sell it and pretend that it has no ill-effects before studies are done and it is either banned or the lawsuits start rolling in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid [wikipedia.org]
And, yes, that name means these drugs are similar to nicotine. They are literally spraying our food with drugs that are known to be harmful and addictive to humans, and calling it "pesticide". George W. Bush hamstrung the EPA and tried to cover the whole thing up because he was a blatant whore for the pharma-chemi-troleum industry along with being the single most completely worthless president in US history.
Re:One More Bush Era Screw Up (Score:2, Informative)
One more example of how Bush and his greedy incompetent Republican asshats have screwed everybody. This stuff is used because of a conditional waiver that was issued in 2003, against the scientific advices of the experts.
It's just like the BP Gulf oil spill and the coal mine explosion in West Virginia. There are systems in place to protect people and the environment, but when the Republicans gain control they stop all oversight. It takes five to fifteen years to see all the failures, and by then everyone forgets who turned over control to the crooks and lairs.
They just wave the flag, blame everything on the government bureaucrats and illegal aliens, scream about the war on terror, and then lie and deny when the shit hits the fan. I guess as long as these morons continue to lie and cheat their way into power we deserve to have poisoned gulf seafood and the end of flowering crops.
Don't worry, you can just consume more high fructose processed food and get diabetes. The corn/agribusiness lobby will continue to do just fine with their massive tax breaks and government subsidies, and they're so rich that they can afford imported fruits and vegetables. If you get sick and loose your health care you can crawl off and die, and that will solve them problem.
Pssstttttt.... 15 years before the events you cited... Clinton was president.
Re:One More Bush Era Screw Up (Score:5, Informative)
As further evidence, the number of lawsuits issued by the EPA dropped by 75% [ens-newswire.com] under the Bush administration. (!) It's no coincidence that during the last decade we had increasing food safety alerts about E. Coli, etc. in our food, increased mercury in bodies of water, etc., etc. etc. This was done intentionally in the belief that applying the following rules always works: "regulation = bad" "business interests = good". Stupid and short-sighted.... (And yet somehow the American people felt it was a good idea to let these guys back into control of congress? WTF? They're going to get what they deserve, the only problem is I'm going to get what they deserve it too since environmental problems affect everyone.)
Re:Some Questions (Score:5, Informative)
The FDA screens pesticides for how they will be used, how mobile the pesticide is and how long the residue lasts. If this was not done then cry foul.
...
I have not found the application for use as a seed coating but Bayer would have needed to go through a process to get that approved by the EPA.
Did you RTFA?
"...Bayer was granted a 'conditional registration' while the Environmental Protection Agency waited for them to conduct further field studies on the pesticides impact on bee colonies."
Long story short: The original study was crap, the EPA allowed it, and Bayer knew that the pesticide was a bee killer.
Re:Some Questions (Score:4, Informative)
Which pesticides?
There is a /huge/ spectrum of different chemicals to kill different sorts of pests, used in different ways, and with different mechanisms of action. Saying that "pesticides" affect nitrogen fixation is an overbroad statement.
Re:One More Bush Era Screw Up (Score:5, Informative)
I'd just like to add that, while strongly worded, the parent post isn't actually a troll
Let's see, in reality clothianidin was granted full approval this year -- April 2010! That's 4 years of a completely Democratically controlled congress and 2 years of a Democratic House+Senate+President. Most politically appointees from the Bush years are LONG gone by now. Turnover in agencies is incredible around election time. I'm very, very glad to see more stuff of this type appear on Wikileaks (though I wish some other government's dirty laundry would start showing up too). The troll part is being so blindly partisan. IMHO, it's that kind of super-polarized partisanship that helps lead to so many of our political problems.
Additionally, CCD is occurring around the globe--even in countries that don't use clothiandin.
As further evidence, the number of lawsuits issued by the EPA dropped by 75% [enO's-newswire.com] under the Bush administration. (!) It's no coincidence that during the last decade we had increasing food safety alerts about E. Coli, etc. in our food, increased mercury in bodies of water, etc., etc. etc
What on does the EPA have to do with E. coli outbreaks? Does the EPA really control wild boards running through spinach fields? Or indeed have ANYTHING to do with that situation?
Re:and (Score:2, Informative)
I modded it off-topic because it has nothing to add to the dicussion of pesticides and their effect on bees. Nor does it offer any real discussion about the EPA approval prrocess. In fact, the entire pesticide/bee story is merely cited as an example of something else entirely that the poster is just itching to tell us about.
And if it wasn't off-topic, calling your political opponents asshats, morons and cheaters is just flaming. It's barely on-topic as a mindless political screed, which is a pretty low standard. But "uncomfortable truth"? Partisan ranting is certainly one of those two things.
Re:Some Questions (Score:5, Informative)
Also, it's apparently used in the UK. Are only North American bees susceptible to this? The article says:
Of course not. The better question would be has the UK had a problem with colony collapse as well? The answer to that would be yes, it has.
Re:Some Questions (Score:4, Informative)
I have mod points but I'm also a biochemist so I thought I'd answer a few of your questions.
The pesticide in question is also found in pollen. Since Bees come into frequent contact with said pollen, it's not too much of a surprise that at certain levels, it can be harmful to them.
In short, no, they are not the only ones susceptible. The LD50 for bees is in the ppm range but there is concern that bees show abnormal behavior at ~20 ppb. Different plant components contain different concentrations of the insecticide. Mostly in the leaves which can have up to 20x the amount of insecticide shown to change bee behavior.
The pesticide its self is designed to mimic Nicotine in that it works against the neurological systems of many species of insects.
Fungus and virus combo. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:malicious skepticism (Score:5, Informative)
Before someone shoots down your argument, wondering what research you are refering to, I thought I'd provide a link to underscore your point: http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2007/july/19783.htm [seedquest.com]
A study by the University of Michigan showed that organic methods are sufficient to feed the current global population and more without an increase in the landbase used for agriculture.
Re:Where are those who dubbed wikileaks 'terrorist (Score:5, Informative)
While WikiLeaks is a current and exciting topic, the clothianidin/EPA leak has nothing to do with WikiLeaks [fastcompany.com].
Quoting a prominent secondary story linked from TFA [fastcompany.com]:
Real data (Score:4, Informative)
Here is the EU data on the pesticide [herts.ac.uk].
Some highlights: It is an insecticide, so it should not really surprise that it kills bees. The toxitity to honey bees is well known (LD50 = 0.004 ug/bee, which the document interpret as "high" risk). And it is approved for use in most EU countries, including Italy and Germany.
Re:Some Questions (Score:4, Informative)
"The pesticide is a seed coating? How frequently do bees come into contact with seeds that are planted?"
It'll be systemic, in that the plant absorbs it through it's life and any pest eating the plant gets a dose of it. The problem with these systemic insecticides is that they carry through even to the pollen, so Mr Bee plays around with the flower, gets some pollen on him, takes it back to his hive stuck to his legs and then you have pollen infected with systemic insecticide that kills the bees in the hive.
"Also, it's apparently used in the UK. Are only North American bees susceptible to this?"
No, Europe has the same problem with heavy bee decline.
"I'm not a fan of pesticides but I won't deny that they increase food and crop yield."
Even if they do, is it necessary? Here in the UK we have farmers complaining about how crop prices have been forced lower and lower, so many complaining they can't afford to compete each year, we have fields of cabbages and so forth that are just left to rot. In my mind with this kind of evidence we have too much food, perhaps if farmers moved back to organic methods then they may get smaller yeilds but it'd push the prices up for them and yeah, the end customers will probably have to pay more too, but it's not like paying unsustainably low prices in the first place is a good thing, it just means folks will have to give up their chelsea tractors, or get a 40" TV instead of a 50". It aint going to be the end of the world. There's also many health concerns caused by pesticides, we're not immune to any effect from these pesticides, in larger doses they're just as harmful to us, we just don't get them in those doses from crops. The problem is, we don't know what effect small doses have in the longer term.
Interestingly I used to live in the south of the UK and we eventually moved up to Yorkshire, since moving up here my dogs have developed lumps, they're not cancerous but they're quite large all the same and oddly, all the dogs around here have grown lumps- this isn't something that happened to anyone's pets I knew down south, and the difference here is we're surrounded by more fields and the dogs run through the fields. I do wonder if perhaps pesticides are to blame, the lumps don't seem to hurt the dogs, but they are large- the size of a fist in some cases.
Despite all this, as someone who grows cacti in his spare time, I also know the flip side of it- amateur gardeners have lost access to a lot of pesticides over the years and that has led to immunity to the small range (Imidacloprid, Thiadacloprid) of insecticides that are available to amateur gardener amongst invasive species such as non-native Mealy Bugs and Red Spider Mites. As always though, the reason they've been removed for amateur use is due to abuse of farmers- there's a big difference spraying thousands of gallons of the stuff, to an amateur using half a pint to spray a few plants which are kept in a closed environment such as a greenhouse.
I don't really know what the answer is, large scale use of pesticides simply is not good, I think in many ways even GM foods are a better option, because at least you're not introducing poisons that kill things like bees, and have potentially harmful effects on people and pets. Current regulation seems to let farmers get away with murder, whilst not providing pesticides that amateurs could use to abolish invasive species in small quantities in a closed environment where they don't effect the outside world.
I think the only solution is a massive overhaul of regulation from the ground up, but companies like Bayer are massive, and seem to have a near worldwide control of national and international pesticide regulations. I was quite shocked to see a note from Bayer in a garden centre the other week withdrawing one of their named pesticides to be replaced with a new one that was based on the same mix, but had just been rebranded and the price increased- the bit that shocked me is that this meant their old product, was now illegal to use beca
Re:EP(what?) (Score:4, Informative)
Said study by Bayer associate (Score:5, Informative)
Re:EP(what?) (Score:5, Informative)
Growers of organic food still use pesticides (if you try growing crops without any pesticides you'll realize why).
Some organic growers use it. They use a lot less of it, and only specific chemicals (with little to no synthetic stuff):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming#Pesticides [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification [wikipedia.org]
Re:Fungus and virus combo. (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, except the NY Times article failed to mention that that study was funded by Bayer Crop Sciences, whose product was the principle other suspect behind Colony Collapse Disorder.
See this CNN piece in response to the NY Times article: http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/08/news/honey_bees_ny_times.fortune/index.htm [cnn.com]
And this article posted a few threads up: http://www.ktradionetwork.com/tag/dr-jerry-bromenshenk/ [ktradionetwork.com]
Not clear what the real answer is, but it just goes to show that it's easier to mislead a New York Times journalist than one would think and that any scientific study that answers questions of economic significance are subject to meddling with money. Though we sometimes assume that scientists are truly objective, they are human beings and subject to biases and influence like the rest of us.
These sorts of potential conflicts of interest need to be better disclosed - and it's rather embarrassing that the New York Times never published a clarification or follow-up story about this (at least as far as I know).