Insect 'Apocalypse' in US Driven by 50x Increase in Toxic Pesticides (nationalgeographic.com) 148
America's agricultural landscape is now 48 times more toxic to honeybees, and likely other insects, than it was 25 years ago, almost entirely due to widespread use of so-called neonicotinoid pesticides, according to a new study published this month in the journal PLOS One. From a report: This enormous rise in toxicity matches the sharp declines in bees, butterflies, and other pollinators as well as birds, says co-author Kendra Klein, senior staff scientist at Friends of the Earth US. "This is the second Silent Spring. Neonics are like a new DDT, except they are a thousand times more toxic to bees than DDT was," Klein says in an interview. Using a new tool that measures toxicity to honey bees, the length of time a pesticide remains toxic, and the amount used in a year, Klein and researchers from three other institutions determined that the new generation of pesticides has made agriculture far more toxic to insects. Honey bees are used as a proxy for all insects. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency does the same thing when requiring toxicity data for pesticide registration purposes, she explained.
The study found that neonics accounted for 92 percent of this increased toxicity. Neonics are not only incredibly toxic to honeybees, they can remain toxic for more than 1,000 days in the environment, said Klein. "The good news is that we don't need neonics," she says. "We have four decades of research and evidence that agroecological farming methods can grow our food without decimating pollinators." "It's stunning. This study reveals the buildup of toxic neonics in the environment, which can explain why insect populations have declined," says Steve Holmer of American Bird Conservancy. As insects have declined, the numbers of insect-eating birds have plummeted in recent decades. There's also been a widespread decline in nearly all bird species, Holmer said. "Every bird needs to eat insects at some point in their life cycle."
The study found that neonics accounted for 92 percent of this increased toxicity. Neonics are not only incredibly toxic to honeybees, they can remain toxic for more than 1,000 days in the environment, said Klein. "The good news is that we don't need neonics," she says. "We have four decades of research and evidence that agroecological farming methods can grow our food without decimating pollinators." "It's stunning. This study reveals the buildup of toxic neonics in the environment, which can explain why insect populations have declined," says Steve Holmer of American Bird Conservancy. As insects have declined, the numbers of insect-eating birds have plummeted in recent decades. There's also been a widespread decline in nearly all bird species, Holmer said. "Every bird needs to eat insects at some point in their life cycle."
not to be too dark but (Score:2)
that's a pretty good advertisement for the efficacy of pesticides - an apocalypse
Re: (Score:2)
And just think of the profits for the chemical industry... what about the shareholders!!!!
Re:not to be too dark but (Score:4, Interesting)
It reminds me of the legend of King Midas, who asked the god Dionysus that whatever he might touch should be changed into gold. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Apparently no philosopher - and he would have made a lousy programmer, too - Midas did not foresee the consequences. Whenever he tried to eat or drink, the food and drink turned to gold as soon as he touched it. Luckily for him, the god took pity on him and, in response to his desperate prayers, told him how to rid himself of the golden touch.
How much good will their profits do the corporate executives and shareholders when their poisons kill off all our sources of food?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the dependence of modern business on quarterly profit reports and the ability of shareholders to have CEO's removed for not engaging in profiteering is really setting us up for a Midas-moment
It is really to bad that the American public has allowed itself to propagandized into compliance with this charade
Re: (Score:2)
I can't think of ANY food crop that killing pollinators will increase yield.
Corn. Pollinates by wind and happy that all competing weeds die off due to lack of pollinators. Likewise for other wind pollinators, at least till the whole ecosystem crashes or wind pollinated weeds take over.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some hand pollinators have to use vibrators to simulate vibration from bees to extract pollen
Re: (Score:2)
The pesticides aren't killing all insects, just some ones the human species and most of our crops are highly dependent on, pollinators. This is the reason Europe banned them.
The loss of even something like 80% of the pollinators would probably result in the largest famine in human history, the kind of famine that destroys countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Specifically neonicotinoids [wikipedia.org]
Umm, guys? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it too much to ask to get an unbiased source? I mean, I get that being kind stewards to the environment is something we seriously need to shoot for, but when I see this:
"says co-author Kendra Klein, senior staff scientist at Friends of the Earth US. " (emphasis mine)
Not much different to me than an article that would source a '...senior staff scientist at Monsanto', whom I would equally and immediately distrust, and for the same reason.
Re:Umm, guys? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not propaganda if I agree with it. /s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer my personal truth. I feel like I just know more that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Umm, guys? (Score:2)
I prefer alternative facts, myself.
Re:Umm, guys? (Score:5, Informative)
From the paper:
So... in short, it's an utterly worthless methodology. Of course a systemic is going to give a higher score on that measure, because you have to fill up the whole plant's mass to a level lethal to pests in order to provide protection, vs a foliar spray which just sits on the surface of the leaves. It's like they specifically designed their methodology to try to find something that would rate neonicotinoids poorly.
Re:Umm, guys? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>Monsanto has the purpose of making money
If making money also means advances in agriculture (like genetic engineering) to feed billions of people, why is making money bad?
>FoE worries about the environment
It means they are biased toward that end and that any publication by them should be scrutinized as if it were Monsanto trying to make money off a study or claim. Bad science doesn't stop being bad science because you agree with the goals of the people paying for the study.
False dichotomy (Score:2)
Monsato has a _lot_ to answer for.
There's nothing wrong with being skeptical, but good science doesn't stop being good science just because you disagree with a study or claim. It goes both ways.
i use title as open (Score:2)
> It goes both ways.
ing sentence. I made no defense of Monsanto.
Re:Umm, guys? (Score:4, Insightful)
>Also you seem to think that feeding the billions of people is a good thing. In fact, increasing the death rate would be better for the planet on environmental grounds.
Yes, feeding people is a good thing. Finding new and better ways for agriculture to feed people is a good thing. Anyone that thinks we shouldn't feed the poor "on environmental grounds" has lost touch of reality. Anyone that thinks the world is better off without humans is a full fledged retard. If you actually think and believe that the planet is better off without humans. You can accidentally an Epstein.
I care more about my own species and its survival than some hogwash death cultist crap you are shitting out. That garbage idea is not new. It was a crap idea 100 years ago and it's a crap idea now. Yes, humans are the apex species of the planet. Yes, humans should work to bettering the human condition in perpetuity.
It's a tragic irony that the constant struggle to better human life has culminated into self loathing and moral relativism which concludes "increasing the death rate would be better".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was only addressing the part of the comment that "increasing the death rate would be better". Frankly, anything that has that as a premise is wrong. Putting human needs first does not necessitate killing off helpers or ensuring the destruction of every other species. Interestingly enough, some of the most successful species (besides humans) are our helpers or parasites.
Re: (Score:2)
So, why haven't you removed yourself, if removing people is a good thing?
Or so you really think that removing OTHER people is a good thing?
Re: (Score:2)
Also you seem to think that feeding the billions of people is a good thing. In fact, increasing the death rate would be better for the planet on environmental grounds. Just like the honeybee, the human population will die out due to the activities of humans in the environment.
You and the El Paso shooter have much in common. Are you posting this from prison perchance?
Face the truth about "non-profits" (Score:2)
Your assumption of pure motives from a "non-profit" advocacy group is unjustified. The management of "friends of the earth" get paid too, and the more donations they bring in the more secure and comfortable their position will be. They have direct financial interest in motivating donors with urgent calls for action.
Remember that the only difference between for profit and so call "non-profit" enterprises is that the former has a class of people ("owners") who have a claim on their profits. Non-profits mus
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
FoE worries about the environment
That doesn't mean they're not biased, or that they're credible. Homeopaths claim to support health, creationists claim to support natural history, and Friends of the Earth claim to be support the health of the environment while publishing biased, non-scientific, denialist junk like this [foe.org] that only serves to make their stated goal worse off. Just because you have an admirable stated goal doesn't mean your methods are actually advancing that goal.
Monsanto wants to make gobs of money, fair enough not taking
Re: (Score:2)
Both of them want power. One financial, one moral.
Yes, they are opposite sides and morally equivalent.
Re: (Score:2)
Thankfully, Monsanto's purpose is to make money (Score:2)
Monsanto has the purpose of making money
That's a good thing. Because large corporations have the purpose of making money, they have learned to extensively test their products for safety and environmental impact, in order to avoid future lawsuits.
That is largely effective (although sometimes you have an unethical CEO who tries to get away with something [wikipedia.org]).
Re: (Score:2)
What most farmers rely upon pollinators for are production. No pollinators means no almonds, soybeans, or whatever the farmer is trying to sell.
There are some exceptions. Corn is self pollinating, making pollinators irrelevant. So the monsantos find other ways to control
Re: (Score:2)
One of the qualities an unbiased source (assuming such exists) is that it'll have the same passion for the subject as the first, and none of the animosity of the last.
Re: (Score:2)
"enior staff scientist at Monsanto', whom I would equally and immediately distrust, and for the same reason."
I'd mostly distrust him for not having cleaned out his desk and moved to Bayer HQ, since there is no Monsanto anymore.
Yeah, and honeybees are a non-native species (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The native bees are taking quite a hit too. In a way it's worse as they're more cold resistant and out and about pollinating in the early spring. Here the weather seems to be against them lately, leading to really shitty berry crops amongst other things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Should have specified wild berry crops.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"inferior" crops? Christ, please close the tab of whatever demented green blogs you read and spend 20 minutes a day on Wikipedia. Our staple crops (e.g. grains, hay for livestock, tubers, many though not all green vegetables) are pretty much all wind pollinated, self-pollinated or don't require pollination at all. Yes, plenty of fruits and other plants we eat do use insect
Re: (Score:2)
Also: we use honeybees for pollination because it produces an economically valuable second product. The husbandry aspects would necessarily be different (no large colonies), but it might be perfectly feasible to raise native species fo
Re: (Score:2)
Holy god, how did you manage to totally hit every single green hyperbolic misconception, *immediately* after I sought to dispel them?
I managed to hit "every single green hyperbolic misconception, *immediately*"? I could say that is a hyperbole too :)
"inferior" crops? Christ, please close the tab of whatever demented green blogs you read and spend 20 minutes a day on Wikipedia. Our staple crops (e.g. grains, hay for livestock, tubers, many though not all green vegetables) are pretty much all wind pollinated, self-pollinated or don't require pollination at all. Yes, plenty of fruits and other plants we eat do use insect pollination but our health will not suffer if we lose them (fruits and nuts are the main thing but frankly, we're eating way too much of both for our own good anyway. I guess beans might be the one that make me pause the most, but it's worth noting most beans are native to the New World), and regardless honeybees are not the only species that could pollinate them.
Well, I've read that information from a science magazine, not from a green blog. I don't have the source at hand now. Anyhow, about 35% of human consumption (that's consumption amount, not species amount - which would be even higher) requires animal pollination. So I consider that a huge portion (https://metafact.io/factcheck_answers/378).
(If honeybees did disappear overnight, in the existence of continued demand I'm pretty sure industry would find another species we could raise on a large scale.)
I sure hope so! It would be nicer if we don't have to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The US isn't the world?
You would think I would have read that in the morning newspaper.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Umm, guys? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because only a profit motive can produce bad science.
Re: (Score:3)
There are lots of threats to science. Monsanto was used as an example. If the mere mention of their name is enough to froth at the mouth "those lygin dangerous anti-science creepy mother fuckers monsanto" while whatabouting the actual concern of the article then it says more about you than anyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even wild bees?
Re: (Score:2)
Good idea if you live in Churchill, Manitoba. Here it's black bears, there was one in my freezer the other month and they're breaking into more houses/garages then ever. A bit further north it's Grizzlies, who also look on us as prey.
Bees = Parasite (Score:2)
I thought it was pretty well settled that bee decline was the result of mites, parasites, and fungus? Certainly farmers that depend on bees for pollination aren't choosing pesticides that target bees.
Re:Bees = Parasite (Score:5, Informative)
Nope bees that have been weakened by pesticides are susceptible to mites [sciencedaily.com]
Re: (Score:2)
There are also lots of other pressures on pollinators. And neonics (as Europe has found out after banning them, and not seeing any decrease in CCD occurrence) don't seem to be the smoking gun.
An interesting overview on the context, and pointing out that it's a hugely multifaceted problem can be read at: https://skeptoid.com/episodes/... [skeptoid.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, almost all the commercial bees in the US go to CA for the almond crop every spring. The mites are spreading quite well, even riding the trucked hives back to their other seasonal jobsites. The pesticides aren't helping, but putting something like 75% of your entire herd in one place at one time is a pretty solid way to spread an infection.
https://99percentinvisible.org... [99percentinvisible.org]
Re:Bees = Parasite (Score:5, Insightful)
Does it strike you as at all odd that bees, which evolved about 100 million years ago, should be struck down by mites, parasites and fungus exactly at the peak of human population and pollution?
Re:Bees = Parasite (Score:5, Informative)
Honey Bees are being trucked around making it easier for those parasites and fungi to spread in stressed colonies. Basically, mass transport of apiaries help spread disease.
You say "bees" but generally when people are talking about this topic they mean "honey bees". The native bees are not succumbing to those kind of problems. They have problems mainly loss of habitat (partly from honey bees... Honey bees are jerks of the bee world). From what I understand, native bees are doing fine for the most part.
Re:Bees = Parasite (Score:5, Informative)
Also the European Union banned neonicotinoids in 2018.
Re: (Score:3)
Boris Johnson, is that you?
You lie in a mediocre fashion
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, just last week Boris was kissing up to fishermen hamming it up about how the EU required an absurd amount of red tape for them.
The crowd cheered him at the time, but it came out later it was all British law and nothing to do with the EU
You are pretty special there cupcake, to be so Boris-like
Re: (Score:2)
So, the UK would ban a ham sandwich too? That's terrible! Although, not surprising since they are still part of the EU. Do you think they would allow a ham sandwich after Brexit? Or are Europeans just a little touchy about tongue in cheek snipes about the EU? I am sorry for bringing up the serious issue of the ham sandwich kerfuffle.
> Boris-like
Sarcastic?
Re: (Score:2)
As I said, you lie in a mediocre fashion, own it
Re: (Score:2)
What ever makes you feel better. I had a good laugh :)
Although, I am still uncertain about the legal status of ham sandwiches in the EU/UK but I am more a PBJ they myself. I should be fine.
Re: (Score:3)
- UK Environment Secretary Michael Gove (who is in favor of Brexit)
Re: (Score:2)
well, at least you are admitting that you are a complete farce, keep up the mediocre work boy-o
Re: (Score:2)
I have offended the Ham Sandwich.
The Ham Sandwich is upset.
Garyisabusyguy likes the Ham Sandwich.
The Ham Sandwich is garyisabusyguy.
It makes sense now. I apologize oh great and moist Ham Sandwich.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it part of your astro-turfing contract to always post last? In your child-like mind does that make you the 'winner'?
Re: (Score:2)
Hello again Ham Sandwich. What's a moist Ham like you doing in a Sandwich like this?
Re: (Score:2)
yep, of course I have 15 posts on this story as well, but I am are real human :)
I went AC for the past 4 years because of /. owners encouraging astro-turfing like penandpaper
Now that we are all called back into the open, I figure that I will work to expose astro-turfing, since it hurts the overall content of the community
Re: (Score:2)
The native bees are not succumbing to those kind of problems.
This is not correct at all, there has been recorded massive drops in bumblebees and other non honey bee populations just like seen in the commercial honey bee sector.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The latest evidence is that the neonictids are collected with the nector and concentrated into the honey. When the bees begin consuming this honey in the fall and winter the neonictids begin to have neurological effects on the bees such as they stop cleaning the nest or doing routine tasks. This leads to a rise in mite and fungus infections that eventually decimate the young while all the older bees are flying off and dying because they are so neurologically damaged by the neonic's.
Most people don't realize
this is great news (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The flying stinging kind are also the kind that lets you see pretty flowers and get honey. Be VERY careful what you wish for; you just might get it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, insects are the primary pollinators for plants...
No they're not. Wind is the primary pollinator for plants. All grasses (which include all grains consumed by humans), all trees that aren't fruit trees (and nut trees are not fruit trees and are wind pollinated), all shrubs that aren't fruit-bearing, all understory plants that humans typically call weeds are wind pollinated. Basically all plant phyla that aren't angiosperms are either wind pollinated, spread spores on the wind, or don't reproduce with seeds or spores, and 12% of angiosperms are wind poll
Re: (Score:2)
And soon when all the plants die, my allergies will be gone!
Study funding (Score:2)
Study was funded by "Friends of the Earth," whose website starts with a CSS popover with all caps "STOP TRUMP FROM..."
In fact, the last authorship on the paper is from someone who works there. I'm not an expert in the field to judge their paper, but when I see both funding and senior authorship from a source with a specific axe to grind, though.
Re: (Score:2)
"I get skeeved out." was supposed to be the last part of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Study funding (Score:2)
The biased one is the one who thinks there's nothing anyone could possibly want to stop Trump from doing.
another source..... (Score:2, Informative)
Exterminator (Score:5, Insightful)
"But I don't have ants, termites, cockroaches or other bugs in my house."
"I can see you have quite a few spiders from the webs in your bushes."
"But those are all outside. And I like spiders outside. They eat bugs."
"Err, um. Well, have a nice day."
I suspect that a lot of the over treatment with pesticides is marketing pressure for people to 'get rid of all those icky bugs in your garden'. And it's not difficult to 'creep out' a bunch of housewives over the sight of an errant spider or whatever.
Re:Exterminator (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I am in your house, watching you PPH. :P
Don't need neonics? (Score:2)
"The good news is that we don't need neonics," she says. "We have four decades of research and evidence that agroecological farming methods can grow our food without decimating pollinators."
I'm sure every cash-strapped farmer will be delighted to hear that. Fertilizer, herbicides, and pesticides are huge expenses for them. Since they're all either savvy small businesses or voracious profit-hungry megacorporations, I'm sure they'll jump at the opportunity to spend less on expensive chemicals.
Oh wait, they're not? Huh. Funny that. Could it be that agroecological farming methods are more expensive and/or have lower yields?
Don't get me wrong. All things being equal, I definitely prefer less pestic
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately agriculture is so messed up with cold war era regulations and subsidies you can't really use economic arguments to make any sense of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately agriculture is so messed up with cold war era regulations and subsidies you can't really use economic arguments to make any sense of it.
True that. I just listened to a podcast talking about how chicken production and farm productivity in general were important cold war propaganda. I kinda vaguely remember it was a big deal when the US started exporting grain to the USSR but I never really understood why that was significant. I'd be delighted to start unwinding some of that (and New Deal era marketing orders).
Re: (Score:2)
Freakonomics? Yes, it went into detail about *why* agriculture is messed up. I imagine there are a lot of industries that were important for propaganda in the cold war and got similar treatment. And once you're distorted a market that much, it's hard to stop.
Monsanto (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The insects, wasps, hornets et al are major negative contributors to my enjoyment of my backyard.
Now if I could only have something to fight the kids on my front yard lawn . . .
Re:I need to get some of that (Score:5, Funny)
The insects, wasps, hornets et al are major negative contributors to my enjoyment of my backyard.
Now if I could only have something to fight the kids on my front yard lawn . . .
That's what the wasps and hornets are good for. You just needed to relocate them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Glyphsates, perfectly harmless to bees, but because a small group of scientifically illiterates awarded a court decision, we now have a CANCERRRRRR panic on our hands.
Don't you basically have to bathe in glyphosate to have an increased risk of cancer? The guy in question was a school groundskeeper and I guess regularly got soaked in the stuff carrying around buckets and spilling it on him. But moderate, residential use of Roundup should be relatively safe.
Re: but omg no glyphosates (Score:2)
When we know what amounts something causes cancer in, we can set up occupational exposure limits and change procedures accordingly.
Besides the thinly veiled prejucide on gardeners, I imagine large scale agriculture users don't have direct contact with the liquid. But they also aren't accounting for exposure to spray or vapors.
You see the guys applying it to the fields, they have huge sprayers hooked up on their tractors. They are in close proximity, it's in the air. Let's say only 0.5% of the glyph
Re: but omg no glyphosates (Score:2)
to more than home users will ever buy. Once you stop pretending it is a safe, noncarcinogenic chemical, the adults can find ways to mitigate that while still using it. We could be designing better sprayers,spraying upwind, develop other protective gear and methods. A warning on the bottle/drum. Easy things, but they can't be done with your head in the sand.
Most of the court verdicts will be for commercial users. The research so far, says it's mildly cancerous, not like dioxin where invisible amounts are a
Re: (Score:3)
... Roundup kills weeds, not insects. What is your point exactly? Or did you just decide to take a side trail away from this article?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure there is - for the hybridized flying nettles that take off at dawn looking to dive-bomb the back of your neck. Either glyphosate or a neonicotinoid are effective when applied after they clump together on the ground at twilight.