EU To Ban Neonicotinoid Insecticides 219
PuceBaboon writes "The BBC is reporting that the EU has voted to ban pesticides containing neonicotinoids for at least two years, in an effort to isolate the cause of CCD (colony collapse disorder; the alarming disappearance of bees over recent years). Despite intense lobbying by the chemical companies, a 3-million signature petition helped swing the vote in favor of the ban."
Re:So who was right? (Score:5, Informative)
So were the scientists at the chemical companies right or were the 3 million people who signed a petition right? Did an emotional outcry of ignorance just stop the use of something harmless? Guess we'll know in a couple of years... maybe.
Good question. The consequence of delay in allowing the use of Neonicotinoid chemicals in this case is minimal. It seems the prudent thing to do.
There is good science behind this ban. A Harvard study [inhabitat.com] showed that these Neonicotinoids leak through the production chain of corn syrup, which beekeepers are using to winter their colonies. As soon as that news was out, many, if not most US beekeepers immediately switched back to Cane Sugar syrup, or leaving more Honey in the hives [latimes.com] for the bees instead of selling it off. The trend to feed bees corn syrup is not something that had been going on for all that long - since the 70s. But the addition of Neonicotinoid chemicals is fairly new.
The pesticides are not actually used on or near crops normally pollinated by bees. It was found to be creeping in through the corn syrup. These pesticides are not harmful to humans (as far as we know) so the regulations governing their presence in industrial corn syrup were simply too lax. It remains to be seen if they can be refined out of corn syrup.
Re:Thank goodness they found something to try.. (Score:5, Informative)
Wireless communication FUD has been debunked. Completely.
Neonicotinoid chemicals on the other hand are a new field of study that has been tested by simply removing the source of these chemicals from the bee hives. It was creeping in not from the fields, but from the Beekeepers themselves [latimes.com]. That too was greed, this time on the part of the beekeepers.
Re:Oh, good (Score:4, Informative)
Or, from the obvious article Colony Collapse Disorder [wikipedia.org]
These studies prompted a formal 2013 peer review by the European Food Safety Authority that said neonicotinoids pose an unacceptably high risk to bees, and that the industry-sponsored science upon which regulatory agencies' claims of safety have relied is flawed.[12] CCD is probably compounded by a combination of factors.[13][14][15][16] In 2007, some authorities attributed the problem to biotic factors such as Varroa mites,[17] Nosema apis parasites, and Israel acute paralysis virus.[18][19] Other contributing factors may include environmental change-related stress,[20] malnutrition, and migratory beekeeping.
Yes, of course *sarcasm* the science is settled *sarcasm* I think the science is pretty good against bees using tobacco -- but moderate use of marijuana is usually considered to be generally harmless and occasionally beneficial.
Re:So who was right? (Score:5, Informative)
"The pesticides are not actually used on or near crops normally pollinated by bees."
Bullshit. All over California, citrus crops are sprayed regularly with neonicotinoid pesticides. During my contract work with the state, I applied pesticides within a few miles of apiaries.
They don't give two fucks. They're too worried about trying to contain the asian citrus psyllid to think about anything else.
Re:Oh, good (Score:4, Informative)
No, it does not necessarily reduce anything. It isn't good for industrial agriculture - but who said industrial agriculture is "quality of life"?
Do you know that we are paying farmers not to grow too much crop?
Re:3 Million Sigantures?! (Score:5, Informative)
Honey? That's all you think of when the subject of bees is brought up?
With some notable exceptions, all of your vegetables and fruits are pollinated by honey bees. They all come from FLOWERING PLANTS, which require some agent to move pollen from plant to plant flower to flower. No pollen, no fruit - it's that simple.
Mankind has largely killed off butterflies, and any other "pests" that might have performed the job of pollination. All that is left is the honey bee - which, of course, has been the most efficient agent of pollination for all of human history.
If you like eating, especially if you like having any kind of variety in your diet, then you depend on honey bees. Even if you're allergic to all bee products, you still depend on bees. (never heard of anyone being allergic to honey - I just threw that out there)
Re:apparently, "nicotine" is bad for bees too... (Score:4, Informative)
The theory is that sub-lethal levels confuse bee navigation. In many solitary insects that wouldn't be much of a problem, they just carry on eating and breeding wherever they land. Social insects tend to die if they cant find the their home hive.
Sub lethal levels don't directly kill them but kill them indirectly at much lower concentrations. If the chemicals industry even noticed the direct effect they wouldn't necessarily ever see the indirect mortality, they wouldn't speculate on it and arguably wouldn't report it anyway.
Re:Oh, good (Score:5, Informative)
I had heard that before. I can't say how much of a factor it is in the decimation of bee populations.
I do know that all the "tests" of these insecticides were flawed. And, I do know that Bayer stands up and declares all other studies on the subject are flawed, while declining to perform new tests, and blocking independent tests.
The fact is, approval for Bayer's insecticides were given a bum rush through the original approval process here in the states, with no independent testing. The ONLY testing introduced to the approval process were Bayer's own flawed studies, performed in Canada.
In effect, we took Bayer's word that their product was safe.
Some interesting reading here: http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Are-Neonicotinoids-Killing-Bees_Xerces-Society1.pdf [xerces.org]
Question - should a seasonal insecticide remain in the soil for six years and more?
Question - should insecticides spread far beyond the target fields and crops?
Question - should the insecticide be systemic, being taken into every part of the plant along with the plant's nutrients?
Many people believe that you can just wash the insecticides off of the produce when you bring it home from the farmer's market. With nonicotinoids, the poison is in every cell of the plant. The only way to "wash it off" is to flush the entire fruit or vegetable down the sewer. You WILL eat the poison if you eat the produce!!
Re:Oh, good (Score:3, Informative)
It's not magic, honey has a low ph and high osmotic pressure (i.e. high sugar/water ratio) which lend it's antimicrobial properties. Plenty of beekeepers feed a solution of sugar similar in concentration and ph to their bees.
Re:Oh, good (Score:4, Informative)
According to their FAQ, Karo is corn syrup, but not high fructose corn syrup, which is a modified corn syrup to change some of the sugars. You did make a good catch though - I had forgotten about them. [ Barely saved by a technicality. ;) ]
Karo FAQ [karosyrup.com] (Reversed the order for clarity)
Re:3 Million Sigantures?! (Score:3, Informative)
"(never heard of anyone being allergic to honey - I just threw that out there)"
I, unfortunately, am (worst thing in my life, because it wasn't so in several years of my childhood - I know how honey tastes like, but can't even taste a bit). Still supporting ban and would like to see return of some sanity in farming in EU in general. Currently they just deplete soil just because they get bigger kickbacks for that. Screwed up big time. Some sort of support would make sense in territories where farming is struggling to survive as industry, but in rest of Europe - hardly doubt it. Of course farmers who are already heavily depend on subsides won't agree with me.
Re:Oh, good (Score:5, Informative)
Corn syrup and HFCS are not really the same thing. You can get normal corn syrup in large containers under the Karo brand, in at least the USA. Karo syrup does not contain HFCS.
Specifically, compare Karo corn syrup with HFCS:
Karo is straight corn syrup, with minimal processing and some vanilla flavoring. According to Karo's website, it contains about 20% dextrose, and contains a wide variety of other natural sugars. (It is derived from starches, so likely contains maltose, amylose, and pals.)
HFCS on the other hand is sweeter, because it is 50% glucose, and 50% fructose, and contains no other sugars. (Though it may contain chemical residues from the manufacturing process.) This is intentional, because it is made to compete with sucrose sugar from refined sugarcane, which is a fructose and a glucose bound together with an ether bond. The higher fructose content makes it sweeter than normal corn syrups, which have larger saccharides, and lower binding potentials to tastebuds, or which break down into larger monosaccharides with lower binding potentials. (The ether bond in sucrose is broken almost as soon as it enters the mouth by the enzymes in saliva. This is why sucrose tastes very sweet while being a larger saccharide. Other disaccharides like lactose and maltose, break down into larger monosaccharides than fructose. Artificial sweeteners are largish molecules (still smaller than polysaccharides though) as well, but have more hydroxyl groups, or more bound oxygen atoms serving as functional groups. This causes them to bind more aggressively with the sweetness receptors on tastebuds.) The fructose monosaccharide is the major culprit in the alledged health risks associated with HFCS (and also sucrose), since it is metabolized quite differently from glucose, and produces many harmful metabolic biproducts of that metabolic pathway. Others are the chemical residues often remaining in the syrup. In nearly every way, HFCS is metabolically identical to sucrose consumption, and much cheaper.
Normal corn syrup contains significantly less fructose than HFCS, and considerably more glucose, and glucose producing disaccharides. It is therefore considerably "less bad" than HFCS or white table sugar. (Really, you shouldn't be eating high glycemic food products anyway, and they really can't be called "good for you". Instead, this mixture is just "less bad".)