[HN Gopher] Pesticide believed to kill bees is authorised for us...
___________________________________________________________________
Pesticide believed to kill bees is authorised for use in England
Author : montalbano
Score : 261 points
Date : 2021-01-09 15:33 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| LatteLazy wrote:
| The pesticide was banned by the EU 2 years back. Is there any
| evidence bees numbers have resurged? I'd be happy to keep this
| banned, I'm just asking...
| oxfordmale wrote:
| From the link below, at least the effect on bumble bees is
| clear cut:
|
| The impact of neonicotinoids on bumble bees is more in
| agreement. The majority of lab, semi field, and field studies
| report negative implications of neonicotinoids. Of four field
| studies investigating bumble bees [23-26], three report such
| effects [23, 25, 26]. These bees are about 2-3 times more
| sensitive than honey bees to neonicotinoid toxicity [13, 27,
| 28].
| riffraff wrote:
| But the question here was different: did the ban produce any
| measurable effect in the two years since it has been
| established?
|
| For example, we may have replaced neonicotinoids with massive
| use of something else, causing even worse problems.
|
| My guess would be that we just don't have the data, but it's
| an interesting question.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| It is not the only factor impacting the bees and the impact is
| not even quantified, so it is very hard to measure the results
| in uncontrolled environment (in nature). I think the bee
| populations are still in danger, ban or not.
| Thorrez wrote:
| I don't understand why this article is mentioning Brexit as if
| it's related. It says 11 countries have done this, including EU
| countries Belgium, Denmark and Spain. Therefore this appears
| unrelated to Brexit.
| emayljames wrote:
| I don't trust the current UK government one shred, but there is a
| very small chance it is just for this emergency use to stop that
| sugar beet virus.
| dwardu wrote:
| Was there ever a government that was really that trustworthy?
| We've been losing our freedoms for a while now.
| mnd999 wrote:
| Not sure everyone would agree with that the main job of
| government is to grant you more freedom. Careful regulation
| is just as important imho.
| pkaye wrote:
| Why can't they use a non neonicotinoid pesticide instead?
| bluGill wrote:
| Can you name one that works and isn't worse?
| pkaye wrote:
| It was a rhetorical question. These countries where pushing
| for all these pesticide bans without identifying safer
| alternatives. Perhaps instead of banning it, maybe limited
| use for specific cases while promoting the research of
| alternatives.
| 40four wrote:
| I'm not really sure yet how I feel about this particular case of
| temporary emergency authorization (which is omitted from the
| title). I get the chemicals were banned for good reason, but in
| this case they are trying to prevent a whole commodity sector
| from collapsing. Tough situation to be in.
|
| The larger issue to me is how warped the debate around saving
| bees and pollinators has become. I get very frustrated every time
| I read articles on this topic, because I feel like the way it is
| presented is very misleading.
|
| It's always presented in a way that makes it seem like these
| large farms are dependent on 'wild' bees and pollinators. They
| make it sound like the only thing that matters is our use of evil
| chemicals, and if you support their use the. You are a piece of
| shit who doesn't care about the earth.
|
| In reality, large commercial mono crop farms depend on bee
| keepers who provide their hives as a service. Their bees are the
| ones dying en mass, not wild bee populations. You're not going to
| find many wild bees or anything else for that matter in these
| areas, the biome doesn't support them.
|
| Mono-croping as a practice is an environmental disaster just by
| it's nature. There is no biodiversity by design. This in turn
| makes pests and diseases that harm the beehives brought in by
| beekeepers that much worse. Then of course, add large scale
| chemical application on top of that and we've created a huge
| mess.
|
| So really, when you see these articles claiming huge percentages
| of bees dying, they aren't wrong. They are just being
| purposefully misleading about _which_ bees are dying. It is the
| bees brought in by the "Beekeepers as a service", not wild bees.
|
| As bad as that is, there is the good thing to remember. Those are
| 'farmed' bees. We can always farm more bees. That might be a hard
| challenge for the beekeepers, but it's not the same thing as all
| the wild bees in the world dying and everyone starving to death.
| We need to stop confusing the topic with wild bees.
| lwhi wrote:
| Both things could be true.
|
| Surely investment in monocrops is affecting wild bee
| population?
|
| If the pesticides affect farmed bee populations, why shouldn't
| they in term have the same affect on wild bees? Isn't their
| physiology going to be the same (or very similar)?
|
| I don't understand what you're trying to say?
| alsetmusic wrote:
| I was with you for a lot of this post. However, I'm curious how
| one can say that "Beekeepers as a service" are harmed and not
| wild bees. How would wild bees be distinct from harm? It's not
| like a virus that harms humans distinguishes populations. How
| does this harm one group and not the other?
| iguy wrote:
| I think the complaint is that many of the dramatic bee-
| decline stories are, without mentioning it, just about rent-
| a-hive services. It seems dishonest to present as evidence of
| an environmental catastrophe a particular business problem.
|
| However, as you say, there are real concerns about wild
| insect declines, and the same chemicals surely kill both.
| These are what should get airtime.
| [deleted]
| tchalla wrote:
| Monoculture is a high risk strategy for every facet of life -
| farms, investments, gene pools, markets etc. I feel you - I
| wish we talked about implications and made an explicit
| risk/reward trade off for any such decision.
| antihero wrote:
| One could argue that this stems in fact from the division of
| labour itself.
| [deleted]
| kurthr wrote:
| I see your position, and I agree that the problem is more
| complex than just pesticides are bad, but it's also more
| complex than saving sugar beets. If this were an invasive
| species (like murder hornets or malarial mosquitos) problem
| that could be stopped before it started or a temporary measure
| to prevent life and death (rather than wealth accumulation) for
| a significant number of people, I'd have more sympathy.
|
| Application to sugar beets is expected to increase crop yields
| 13% on a non-critical crop, for a commodity (sugar) that can be
| easily imported. The virus problem won't ever go away. So this
| just sounds like subsidizing a particular local agricultural
| industry, because it's having a hard time competing right now.
| Will that ever change, why not choose bees or wildflowers over
| sugar beet farmers? Is it just because they can pay for
| lobbyists or positive news coverage?
|
| Furthermore, it sounds an awful lot like the massive use of
| (the most advanced) anti-biotics in cattle feed lots to
| increase meat yield. That builds up immunity so that those last
| line of defense drugs are no longer useful to treat humans with
| deadly diseases. The key here is that there will be a state of
| permanent emergency where some new poison is always needed to
| keep profits at their previous artificially high level.
|
| If the local industry can't compete, and it's not necessary
| other than for a small group's continued profit, maybe it's
| time to move on. The alternative is a possibly long term loss
| of pollinators (because the insecticide goes down streams) and
| the development of stronger/larger reservoirs of mites, moths,
| molds that could permanently affect all pollinators in England.
| martinald wrote:
| But what percentage of UK land is used for growing sugar
| beet? It must be a small fraction. How many bees are actually
| going to be in the vicinity of this? I can't see it being a
| large amount.
|
| Regarding "we can just import it", well yes, but if everyone
| took that opinion then there wouldn't be any farming anywhere
| eventually.
| kurthr wrote:
| Sugar beets are only grown where cane is not a viable crop,
| but end-end they are typically about 2-3x the cost of
| production. Beet sugar is an awful ecological and economic
| choice created by putting taxes on the importation of cane
| sugar. To the extent that it is pure sucrose (and I'm not
| aware of any alcohols made from beets like rum is from
| molasses) there isn't any difference in the product either.
| The US pioneered the protection of the sugar industry with
| >100% tariffs (EU has followed) and thus they have the
| world's largest sugar beet industry... for little political
| reason other than protectionism for a Florida (or German
| dominated) industry.
|
| don't know if you should trust this link, but it's a decent
| paper:
| https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/7000/files/cp02zi02.pdf
|
| p.s. The paper ends in the late 90s although little has
| changed other than the closing of the US cane industry in
| Hawaii.
| choeger wrote:
| I might be wrong about this, as I don't work in the
| agrarian industry, but I think where I come from, beets
| were grown as an alternative to wheat, etc., to replenish
| the soil.
| GordonS wrote:
| I don't know where you're from, but for our US readers it might
| be worth pointing out that large farms in the UK are nowhere
| near the size of "large" farms in the US.
|
| I've also never heard of "bees as a service" here, though I
| know it exists in the US.
|
| For reference, I'm not a farmer, but live in the British
| countryside.
| stinos wrote:
| You make a very good point, but your post reads a bit too much
| like 'wild bees are fine'. I think you know what follows, but
| just for completeness and for other readers: they aren't, _at
| all_ , just like insects in general (the numbers are so
| unbelievably insane I'm nog even going to look up the latest
| one but just say '70% decrease in the last couple of decades'
| and it will be ballpark correct, unfortunately). And unlike the
| domestic bees they cannot be bred (or at least not easily).
| Pesticides likely also play a role in there, small perhaps,
| habitat loss is estimated to be the main factor. Which mono-
| crops also is the key player in of course; not just because
| those fields are no habitat but also because upscaling leads to
| destroying the surroundings, and so on.
| Jefff8 wrote:
| I don't think that brought in bee keeping exists very much in
| the UK. I live near the edge of fields, in a semi-rural
| setting. I've never seen it. I have see plenty of wild bees and
| bee hives.
| dan-robertson wrote:
| The sugar beet farmers groups have been trying to get emergency
| authorisation ever since the pesticides were banned. I feel
| like it isn't a sustainable situation and these farmers unions
| are either misleading or foolish if they believe these measures
| will be both temporary and successful. They also seem to have a
| weird line about the zeitgeist against refined sugar (maybe the
| article mentions this as a reference to honey but honey bees
| aren't so badly affected by this chemical as bumble bees are)
| as if they are suggesting they aren't producing refined sugar
| and that they are some important part of the future desired by
| the people who support the neonicotinoid ban.
| TeaDrunk wrote:
| Wild bee populations have _also_ dropped like a stone and that
| is also worth worrying for.
| okaybsdk wrote:
| England already can't get over with new strain of covid, they
| will soon be under crisis of unprecedented hurdles, let's hope
| for the best of bees.
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| The article title purposefully leaves out the "emergency use
| authorization" part in order to drum up anger. I think that part
| should be put in.
|
| 11 other countries have joined in the emergency authorization so
| its not just a UK thing.
|
| This is not a pro/against post about Thiamethoxam. The studies
| seem a bit divided, and the UK banned out of abundance of caution
| from a European Food Safety Authority study, versus a larger
| global study.
| rdiddly wrote:
| I do agree with you, but I also think an appropriate measure of
| skepticism should be applied to all "emergencies" as well.
| People do all sorts of stupid counter-productive things when
| they're all freaked-out and not thinking straight because of an
| "emergency." And people in a position to create or exaggerate
| emergencies will do so cynically in order to manipulate an
| otherwise non-compliant public into accepting all sorts of
| stuff that's against their interests.
| londons_explore wrote:
| "emergency use authorization"'s tend to be renewed, and
| renewed, and finally made permanent...
| rriepe wrote:
| It's worth the anger.
| Chris2048 wrote:
| I saw the title and immediately thought "is this gonna be BS".
| Turns out yes.
| lwhi wrote:
| How's it been shown to be BS?
| Chris2048 wrote:
| It fails to mention the authorizations are "Emergency
| authorizations", thereby omitting relevant information to
| make the title more click-baity
| ashtonkem wrote:
| Emergency authorizations often end up being permanent.
| Claiming that the entire premise of the article doesn't
| hold water because it's an "emergency" authorization is
| to completely ignore how emergency authorizations work in
| practice.
| atoav wrote:
| Depends on the definition of "emergency". Surely the torries
| will hold their promise and enforce stricter nature
| protection standards than the EU -- absolutely no doubt about
| it given their track record both when it comes to
| environmental protection and to keeping promises.
| vixen99 wrote:
| Reading https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2903/
| j.efsa.... and
| https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/114256v1.full.pdf
| (for instance - & many more) doesn't suggest BS to me but
| others can make up their own minds.
| Pfhreak wrote:
| I'm not educated in this area, but could they not use other
| methods to stem the reach of the virus? For example, are there
| other crops they could grow for a time until the viral amounts
| dropped lower?
| toiletfuneral wrote:
| The extinction of honey bees is just a massive opportunity for a
| entrepreneurs.
|
| Honestly why do we even fake that we give a shit anymore? Capital
| won, nature lost. Just turn the entire planet into Shenzhen and
| be done with it.
| Shorel wrote:
| This is also a consequence of Brexit and the UK aligning with the
| USA corporate interests.
| kcartlidge wrote:
| Personally I'd rather the sugar beet was sacrificed, not the
| bees.
|
| That said, this is absolutely nothing to do with Brexit -
| unless Belgium and the Netherlands also left the EU without us
| noticing. The UK is neither the first nor the only country
| doing it.
|
| That doesn't make it right, but it does make the Guardian's
| slant wrong (and I speak as a Guardian reader).
| bearbin wrote:
| Hardly, similar emergency authorizations have been applied in
| other EU countries, in actuality these exemptions were applied
| last year and the UK is late in doing this... Not sure how the
| EU really comes into this at all.
|
| https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/news/pesticides-efsa-examine-e...
| Panoramix wrote:
| It's not quite the same to lift the ban entirely (UK) than to
| give individual, temporary exemptions to farmers that have
| difficulties for whatever reason.
|
| edit:Welp, I can't read. Seems it's also temporary emergency
| use.
| detaro wrote:
| The article clearly describes it as being an emergency
| authorization just like in other countries?
| iguy wrote:
| It comes in because the subheading and first paragraph are
| carefully written to capture brexit-inflamed eyeballs.
|
| They do later tell you "11 countries to allow emergency use
| of the product" and "The UK ... joined EU countries including
| Belgium, Denmark and Spain in signing emergency
| authorisations", but easy to miss on the first skim.
|
| That doesn't of course imply that it's a great idea. A 25%
| decline in PS18m worth of sugar doesn't really sound like a
| big enough deal, but maybe localized short-term use of
| chemical weapons also isn't such a big deal, I don't know?
| learnstats2 wrote:
| That's what the headline is trying to imply; yet, the article
| makes it clear that other EU countries have equally granted
| emergency authorisations, within EU provisions for doing so.
| tw04 wrote:
| Are they though? Bayer bought Monsanto a couple years ago. They
| seem to be aligning themselves with German corporate interest
| on this one. There doesn't appear to be a US source of the
| chemical anymore:
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-07/bayer-clo...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid
| mistrial9 wrote:
| Bayer bought Monsanto along with extensive internal
| discussions with legal on the liabilities facing Monsanto
| with RoundUp and these adverse findings on some pesticides.
| Yet, there are human beings who will use stealth and
| obscurity to sign these approvals and take the money home.
|
| Those who profit are not those who are harmed -- is this not
| crystal clear that politics must resolve toxic (and highly
| profitable) chemical industry practices ?
| shaolinspirit wrote:
| wow, this was my favourite black mirror episode!
| quattrofan wrote:
| So let me get this right 18m is more than the cost to us from the
| loss of bees? Really?!
| Jweb_Guru wrote:
| Externalities are not priced correctly by the market.
| Sudophysics wrote:
| A society of advanced apes with a penchant for destroying their
| environment decides that a species that is necessary for their
| survival is better off dead because they don't care for a weird
| thing called science.
| CameronNemo wrote:
| I don't think the UK wants the bee species dead. I think
| we/they just take for granted the resiliency of the environment
| we live in.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| More like: I don't think the UK wants the bee species dead. I
| think business interests just want money now more.
| martamorena2 wrote:
| That, or they reason that if they live in a house that's
| burning down, adding another flame won't make a difference.
| Anon1096 wrote:
| Smugly declaring that your side is based in the "science" and
| the other side isn't doesn't automatically make it true. The
| question of whether to allow a pesticide that kills bees is a
| public policy question, not one of science, though science can
| certainly be used to inform decisions.
| lwhi wrote:
| Public policy?
|
| Which world are you living in?
|
| Sooner or later it becomes a question of survival.
| beaconstudios wrote:
| Arguably it's the success of science that has allowed us to
| destroy our environment. Back in the middle ages we didn't have
| much leverage over nature.
|
| The problem we have is that there's lots of us and we're pretty
| insatiable.
| vcdimension wrote:
| Honey bee's are not native to Britain, and are not in any
| danger of disappearing because, like chickens, sheep, cows, and
| other livestock, we control their population; when demand or
| price of honey bee's is high beekeepers produce more, when it
| is low they produce less:
| https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/04/17/bee-apocalypse-was-neve...
| reportingsjr wrote:
| Not sure how you came to that conclusion after reading that
| article. It states that honeybees (Apis mellifera) possibly
| originated in Asia and spread to Africa and Europe about
| 300,000 years ago.
|
| Additionally, it is likely that honeybees are native to
| Britain: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250278609_A
| re_honey...
|
| The greater issue here though is that if honeybees are
| affected, there are likely many other bee species and insects
| that are affected that we _aren't_ protecting.
| gpvos wrote:
| I guess I agree with you in general, but you're simplifying the
| issue so badly that you still deserve my downvote.
| ineedasername wrote:
| We'd rather have cheap sweet things than expensive sweet
| things. Then we'll come up with a cheap solution for the
| consequences that causes even more problems, and on and on.
|
| It seems like most of the problems we have as a society are
| because we choose expedient solutions rather than careful
| solutions to problems.
| liaukovv wrote:
| This approach appears to work since we thrive as a species.
| Technically wrote:
| What are you comparing us to? We don't have a control group
| for intelligent species.
| liaukovv wrote:
| Why do you consider intelligence somehow special over big
| teeth or ability to change color at will?
| rubicon33 wrote:
| Vote with your dollar and buy organic. It's not cheap, but it
| sends a message.
| [deleted]
| Chris2048 wrote:
| Advanced ape fails to RTFA
| mc32 wrote:
| If we could only remember the old "Four Pests"[1] campaign. Ah,
| grand old optimistic campaigns of the triumph of people over
| nature!
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_Campaign
| saiya-jin wrote:
| I've caught a few news here & there since Brexit started coming
| about GB receding from say higher foot safety/quality standards
| (because of US pressure in that specific article), and then some
| pesticides articles including this. Is this just a random noise
| or does generally EU has higher standard for environment & food
| safety compared to where UK is heading?
| ricardonunez wrote:
| The EU does have higher standards and have more regulation than
| the US. The UK will set their own now, which they can lighten
| up.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| Except in this case some of the other EU countries have
| allowed the same (?) already a year ago.
| kcartlidge wrote:
| Nothing to do with Brexit. Belgium and the Netherlands are
| doing the same, along with many other countries.
|
| I don't agree with it (modern sugar use is evil), but it has
| nothing to do with lowering food and safety standards as, as
| mentioned, some EU countries have done the same.
| billiob wrote:
| It is like in France, there shouldn't be that much of an issue.
| Iirc, the use of use of neonicotinoid on beet is with coated
| seeds. Then, the beets are harvested way before they even produce
| a flower thus the bees will not pollinate such infected plants.
| armedpacifist wrote:
| This isn't about neonics specifically, it's about a range of
| pesticides that are being used. Again, it doesn't affect only
| honey bees. Honey bees exist in an ecosystem of pollinators of
| which they contrive only a small percentage.
|
| There's also the fact that neonics ao. are persistent for at
| least a couple of years, affecting the crops after the one for
| which they were originally intended. That is why along with
| temporarily allowing certain pesticides, certain crops are
| being prohibited or enforced as a follow up crop.
|
| It gets complicated pretty quickly. Laissez-faire indeed...
| stinos wrote:
| There could be other things at play though than pollinating or
| not. I know the coating was presented as better than just
| spraying around etc, and is is, but it's not like it ends
| there. Neonicotinoids are water soluble so some of it will end
| up in the soil and from theere might leak to surface water.
| Effects of that are all known yet, but it's not all looking
| good. Not saying there are problems for bees, just that seed
| coating could well be more than 'not much of an issue'.
| turbinerneiter wrote:
| Here is what I learned about this particular pesticide, from my
| cousin, who is a farmer who also sometimes plants sugar beets.
|
| 1. This particular pesticide comes in the form of a pill, which
| is planted with the seed.
|
| 2. It is very targeted on a particular pest (german name is
| Rubenrusselkafer).
|
| 3. Without it, the whole field will be lost.
|
| 4. The replacement is a conventional broad band pesticide. It
| kills everything. He said that after using it once, when he
| walked the field he saw all kinds of dead bugs and worms - which
| are kinda important for the soil as well. He said "farming like
| this makes no sense" and stopped growing sugar beets.
|
| The real killer however is this:
|
| 5. Sugar beets do not blossom.
| [deleted]
| nerdponx wrote:
| Thanks for this insight.
| to11mtm wrote:
| Soo....
|
| Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding this.
|
| If they don't blossom, Bees will not really pick them up from
| the sugar beets. i.e. this isn't like using the pesticide on a
| flowering plant where the bees will be picking up the chemical.
|
| Interesting?
|
| It still seems there would still be some overall impact on
| groundwater to some level, as well as risks if the crop is
| planted in rotation with a different crop.
| turbinerneiter wrote:
| Exactly.
|
| I have no clue whether or not, and how, the bees will pick up
| this poison from this application. Maybe it gets diluted and
| never harms bees. Maybe it still gets out and to them.
|
| I tried to look for papers and the first two I found came to
| opposing conclusions and both of them looked sketchy af.
| tengbretson wrote:
| This is highly concerning news.
| fiftyacorn wrote:
| I read it was the sugar industry driving this, and it's worth
| noting the first brexit minister was an executive for one of the
| sugar companies before he became a mp
| jcampbell1 wrote:
| Neonics were blamed for colony collapse disorder even though
| there was zero evidence and bees that die due to pesticides are
| found dead on the ground below the hive. IIRC, CCD had a
| migration pattern that was exactly what one would expect from the
| spread of a disease or parasite and had zero in common with an
| environmental toxin.
|
| The title is accurate depending on what "believed" means. I
| suppose I gave my kid vaccines believed to cause autism.
| armedpacifist wrote:
| CCD doesn't have one single cause. Due to a plethora of factors
| (monocultures, neonics and other -icides, irresponsible use of
| antibiotics, ignorant beekeeping methods, ... ) the bee
| population is weakened, clearing the way for parasites like the
| varroa mite to strike the final blow.
| g8oz wrote:
| From the Pollinator Network @ Cornell:
|
| https://pollinator.cals.cornell.edu/threats-wild-and-managed...
| icefrakker wrote:
| Nice to see the UK get its head out of its rear - sugar
| production is the future of the UK's economy. The 3000 sugar beet
| growers in the nation are to the 21st century economy what
| textile mills were to the 18th century economy.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-09 23:01 UTC)