Large-Scale Study 'Shows Neonic Pesticides Harm Bees' (bbc.com) 102
Long-time Slashdot reader walterbyrd shared an article from the BBC:
The most extensive study to date on neonicotinoid pesticides concludes that they harm both honeybees and wild bees. Researchers said that exposure to the chemicals left honeybee hives less likely to survive over winter, while bumblebees and solitary bees produced fewer queens. The study spanned 2,000 hectares across the UK, Germany and Hungary and was set up to establish the "real-world" impacts of the pesticides... A growing number of studies have found evidence of a link between neonicotinoids and problems for bees... Data from this study has now been submitted to the European Food Standards Agency. EFSA's report on neonicotinoids in 2013 sparked Europe's temporary ban, and it is now preparing another comprehensive assessment to be released in November.
The BBC adds that "Bayer, a major producer of neonicotinoids which part-funded this study, said the findings were inconclusive and that it remained convinced the pesticides were not bad for bees."
The BBC adds that "Bayer, a major producer of neonicotinoids which part-funded this study, said the findings were inconclusive and that it remained convinced the pesticides were not bad for bees."
Neonicotinoids are 100% Fatal to Bees (Score:3, Insightful)
"The BBC adds that "Bayer, a major producer of neonicotinoids which part-funded this study, said the findings were inconclusive and that it remained convinced the pesticides were not bad for bees."
Then, why did 100% of my bees die within 24 hours after my upwind neighbor sprayed her farm with neonicotinoid pesticides?
Re:Neonicotinoids are 100% Fatal to Bees (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't ever take a companies word for the safety of any of their products. What every one should do when they say things like that is point and laugh.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't ever take a companies word for the safety of any of their products. What every one should do when they say things like that is point and laugh.
Actually, Bayer is the least of the problem. Azadirachtin, which is a neocontinoid, has no organic alternative, and therefore the whole organic farming food industry (whose lobby has much bigger pockets than Bayer) would most likely collapse without it. So you know what they do? Well, read this:
https://geneticliteracyproject... [geneticlit...roject.org]
I really, really doubt the European Commission would give one shit about Bayer even if it did have bigger pockets (after all, they don't seem to have a problem fighting giants like Go
Re: (Score:3)
There are good reasons to be against GMO, mostly because the commercial part of it or the side effects that "change".
So because of some commercial uses bother you, means the technology is bad? That's like saying we should ban desktop computers because Microsoft makes questionable business practices. Besides, many well known GMO patents have expired, and farmers have been using GMO plants royalty free for the last two years to the exclusion of non-GMO because they know the GMO ones to be superior:
https://www.technologyreview.c... [technologyreview.com]
Example: You do realize GMO plants do not contain pollen?
This is just downright laughable. By far the most prominent GMO product is canola, which witho
Re: (Score:2)
Organic pesticides seem to be doing a good job of that already.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm pretty sure that that comment simply points out that most of the aggressive anti-trump rhetoric you see around here (and probably most of the aggressive pro trump rhetoric) is just bots astroturfing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Neonicotinoids are 100% Fatal to Bees (Score:2, Insightful)
It's almost like a chemical that is meant to kill insects, kills insects.
Is anyone really surprised by this outcome?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly my reaction. "Breaking news: insecticide shown to harm insects!"
The actual question is not whether an insecticide will harm bees, but how much they harm bees relative to how much they boost yields by controlling pests (the reason insecticides are used). And in that equation, I seriously doubt you'll find that, say, organophosphates come out as more bee-friendly.
Re: (Score:2)
--dave
Re: (Score:2)
I knew it! Time to use DDT again!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The LARGE problem with this correlation is that it occurred by country. As in, Germany saw no negative effects whatsoever, while the other two did. Moreover, there was a chemical not part of the study present in certain hives(The published parts don't get around to the specifics but I'm guessing only in Hungary and the UK) that has been banned in Germany since 2008. So you may very well be looking at a matter of poor chemical interaction or just that third chemical causing the issue.
Re: (Score:1)
It's a method pioneered by the tobacco industry, honed by the sugar industry, and perfected by the petroleum industry. Don't argue with facts, just sew doubt and uncertainty. Delay. Advocate for "more studies and research". Employ your own "experts" (relevant expertise optional) to question.
Stall long enough and damage is so severe that there is no longer any point in taking action. Look sir, there's no bees left, why ban the pesticides?
Re: (Score:2)
Your bees are not dead. They are merely pining for the fjords.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not honey. It's High Fructose Corn Syrup.
Re:Elephant in the room (Score:5, Insightful)
That's right. We should totally trust the companies that made the fucking pesticides that have killed the bees to make pest-resistant crops that won't kill the bees.
Makes perfect sense.
Re: (Score:1)
You are, perhaps willfully, ignoring the dozens of public universities working with GE crops. The University of Hawai'i's Rainbow papaya, Virginia Tech's Blight Blocker peanut, Texas A&M's HLB resistant citrus, Kansas State's biofortified tomato, to name a few. If there was not such strong opposition, more of those could make it to the market. Even then, no one said blindly trust anyone. Do you also think that vaccines are bad because of pharmacutical companies?
Re: (Score:3)
No, but I do think that a pharmaceutical company would gladly throw a baby off a bridge if it meant a $0.50 bump in its stock price.
I start from a position of distrust when it comes to pharmaceutical companies and multi-national chemical conglomerates looking to establish intellectual property protections over basic foodstuffs. They want trust? Well then start by labeling your products.
Re: (Score:1)
I start from a position of distrust when it comes to pharmaceutical companies and multi-national chemical conglomerates
Fine, start from there. But the moment you deny the scientific consensus which says that GE crops are safe and benefitial, you've careened right into conspiratorial nonsense.
As for patenting, I suppose you would exhibit the same distrust of conventionally bred crops, which have also long been patented? Even if we do take this to be a good point, it applies to far more than GE crops. I suppose you re willing to pay the salary of the breeders who make your food supply possible then? From where I'm standi
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not singling out anything. I'm saying any food product sold to consumers, from corn flakes to fresh produce, needs to have a symbol on its label saying it's from GE, the name of the company that holds the patent, and the fact that the GE is protected by a patent.
And my objection to GE does not start with whether or not it's safe, so let's spare everyone that argument.
On the plus side, if as you say these GE foods are a miracle that will save humanity from hunger an
Re: (Score:2)
You claim to not be singling out GE crops, yet you make no mention of labeling for anything else. Therefore, you clearly are, unless you would also like crops to be labeled if they were produced through techniques such as somaclonal variation, ploidy manipulation, mass selection methods, ect. You dodged every hard question.
If you label GE crops, but fail to give proper context, giving only enough information of misconceptions to spread, that is deceptive. It's like the textbooks saying evolution is only
Re: (Score:3)
And this is where this discussion always turns Orwellian: "We can't tell people that their food is a GE crop, because they might not like it."
A label with a true fact is not deception, friend. If your product can only succeed only as long as consumers don't know where it comes from, then your problem is marketing and not labeling. If the GE corporations spent a fraction of
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between telling and labeling. I work in the area of crop improvement, and like most in a specialized scientific field, I want people to know more about what I do, not less. What is genetically engineered? Corn, soy, cotton, canola, alfalfa, sugar beet, papaya, summer squash, with apple & potato available in limited amounts, with traits including insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, drought loss mitigation, virus resistance, and consumer oriented traits. If I did not want peop
Re: (Score:2)
I've never understood the push for labeling GE foods (beyond the politics). Virtually every plant (and animal) in commercial production today has been engineered for yield, appearance, etc. This has been done for centuries by selective breeding. Modern GE techniques are just a more efficient method of altering the genetic makeup of organisms but fundamentally no different than what Gregor Mendel did hundreds of years ago. (Modern GE techniques also allow cross organism genetic manipulation, again, very targ
Re: (Score:2)
My objection is mainly to the patenting of genetically modified organisms. Intellectual property rights should not extend to basic foodstuffs.
I would think that this objection would be understood by Slashdot readers who champion open source software.
Re: Elephant in the room (Score:2)
I agree. Patents are evil.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about evil, maybe you're right. But I certainly would like to be able to choose whether or not to spend my money on a patented genetically-engineered product.
Re: (Score:2)
Patents are evil since they lock up ideas so only people who can pay benefit from them. They prevent innovation and the progress of science.
Re: (Score:1)
You're a retarded shit. Products which are GE-free are already labeled as such. So the default position is simply that one should assume a product containing plant matter contains GE material unless otherwise labeled.
And the non-GE labels are so they can charge shits like you more money.
Re: (Score:3)
No, they aren't. I mean, they can be (although in some cases, chemical conglomerates will actually sue companies to PREVENT them from labeling non-GE products as non-GE), but they are not by default.
The companies that produce GE foods want to convince the world that their products are superior, will cost less and be of great benefit to humanity. They already put labels on them. I just want three things added to those labels: 1) that the product is, o
Re: (Score:3)
There is no such thing as a GE free organism. Every organism has been bred and altered to meet commercial production requirements. Even "organic" and "GE free" organisms have had centuries of selective breeding (and prior to that, natural selection) so that nothing is free of genetic manipulation. That's just nature.
Re: (Score:2)
You want a genetically engineered crop of pest-resistant elephants? Indoors? Intriguing. Who is promoting paranoia, marketing and denialism about the concept? The Indoor-Trampleable-Underbrush lobby? Living Grass Carpet megacorporations?
Re: (Score:1)
Okay, so you apparently don't know anything about pest-resistant crops.
One of the things that you don't know about pest-resistant crops is that maintaining pest-resistance is futile. All pest-resistant crops will eventually be, you guessed it, vulnerable to the same pests.
Another thing you don't know is that farmers are required by the use license to plant at least some percentage of non-modified crops to serve as an easier target for the typical crop pest. This is because if you were to plant 100% resistan
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone know a way (Score:3)
Re:Anyone know a way (Score:4, Insightful)
That has nothing to do with scientists being careful about their words, it's a stone cold fact that crime is at a historic low. No amount of forceful language on climate change is going to cause changes.
(And for the precious republican snowflakes upset because I'm picking on the right wing voting to waste my tax dollars on pointless law enforcement measures, yes sure fine liberals do it to. There are liberals who believe vaccines cause autism despite forceful language saying no they don't. There are conservatives who do to, and antivaxers aren't as damaging as tough on crime or climate change deniers, but we'll pretend for the moment it's a totally equal bipartisan thing.)
Re: (Score:2)
How dare you get all fact-y at conservatives! It's just not fair!!!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard a lot of "scientists" make absolute claims. Whenever I hear one, I instantly doubt the claim, far more than if I heard a less certain version of the claim.
Re: (Score:2)
Most real scientists are very reluctant to make absolute claims. You are right to be skeptical about any absolute claim.
Bees are dangerous (Score:1)
I got stung by a bee once. I was just sitting on my porch minding my own business and one of those little bastards came up and stung me on my cheek. Well, I blew up like a big red balloon because, as it turns out, I am allergic to bee stings.
Bees can all go to hell. I hope they all die! Kudos to Bayer for helping to rid us of this menace.
Uhhh timing? (Score:1)
They did not take in to account the timing of pesticide application.
Pesticides only have a limited duration.
Re:Uhhh timing? (Score:4, Informative)
More specific counterpoint:
Persistence in soils, waterways, and nontarget plants is variable but can be prolonged; for example, the half-lives of neonicotinoids in soils can exceed 1,000 days, so they can accumulate when used repeatedly. Similarly, they can persist in woody plants for periods exceeding 1 year. Breakdown results in toxic metabolites, though concentrations of these in the environment are rarely measured.
Source [nih.gov]
So... (Score:2)
Well great. (Score:2, Insightful)
Now that we know they are harmful I don't expect our US government to do a damn things about it because "regulation is bad" seems to be the idiotology that so many people are following these days. :(
Re:Well great. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
My almonds come from greece, turkey, spain, france and other mediterranean sites.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe so, but ~80% of other people's almonds are grown in California.
Just an anecdote but... (Score:1)
... for the past week there has been dead bees all over my porch every morning. Not sure why, but I did suspect misuse of pesticides.
what's their motivation (Score:1)
Bayer has absolutely NO incentive whatsoever to admit that their product harms bees.
Unless bees just immediately drop dead upon exposure, they can also say "inconclusive", or come up with a laundry list of weasel words and phrases designed to instill doubt.
It's amazing that they get to have an opinion.
The studies must be done independently, but asking Bayer if they think their product is a problem is never going to get you an honest answer. ever.
Classic example of bad science (Score:5, Insightful)
In sum, of 258 endpoints, 238—92 percent—showed no effects. (Four endpoints didn’t yield data.) Only 16 showed effects. Negative effects showed up 9 times—3.5 percent of all outcomes; 7 showed a benefit from using neonics—2.7 percent.
As one scientist pointed out, in statistics there is a widely accepted standard that random results are generated about 5 percent of the time—which means by chance alone we would expect 13 results meaninglessly showing up positive or negative.
You might as well publish a story that said. "Scientists prove that a casino die rolled 16 times came up a 4, 5, or 6, nine whole times. So dice are clearly all weighted to roll high. This is patently stupid.
Maybe neonicotinoids do kill bees, but this study sure doesn't show it. And whatever the effect is, it's pretty small.
STFU (Score:3, Interesting)
Corporations should have to prove their product is safe when introducing such dangerous products. If there is a risk, they should have wait until cleared. To allow them to continue until they are proven harmful is patently stupid.
If you disagree, then you should be a guinea pig for every new chemical and not be allowed to stop until it has been proven with "scientific consensus" that your problem is actually what you claim it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Classic example of bad science (Score:1)
It's further confounded by other factors. Varroa destructor is the largest threat to European honey bees. Anecdotally, I almost lost a hive to them last year... Definitely weakened them to the point I didn't think they'd make it through winter. I know it's anecdotal, but if the hive was weakened by something else and didn't make it through the winter, how does a study like this account for that. All I'm saying is, like many other things, this is a very complicated issue. And if I'd have to bet, my money w