[HN Gopher] Study shows glyphosate impairs learning in bumblebees
___________________________________________________________________
Study shows glyphosate impairs learning in bumblebees
Author : PaulHoule
Score : 145 points
Date : 2023-07-26 16:41 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (phys.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (phys.org)
| throwaway1a22 wrote:
| [flagged]
| modoc wrote:
| Anyone have recommendations for what will kill goat heads that
| isn't glyphosate? I'd love to use something less awful, but so
| far the goat heads seem unaffected by anything else I've tried.
| lamontcg wrote:
| What about triclopyr?
|
| To try to answer my own question it seems that this page at least
| suggests that it is non-toxic:
|
| https://www.ncagr.gov/pollinators/documents/Bee%20Pesticide%...
|
| Also it looks like the red and maybe yellow sections of that list
| should get banned in favor of the green. If there's that many
| alternatives, we should really force people to switch.
| downWidOutaFite wrote:
| It's also a neurotoxin in humans:
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9101768/
| hammock wrote:
| Is there glyphosate in our food? How does it get there?
| downWidOutaFite wrote:
| Mainly Roundup residues on GMO foods, as well as farm runoff
| in groundwater. EPA estimates we're all exposed to
| 0.058-0.230 mg/kg/day and they set the maximum acceptable
| daily dose at 1.75 mg/kg/day. But the available dosage
| science is weak.
| nemonemo wrote:
| Why mainly through GMO foods? I am wondering if other non-
| GMO ones would use mostly non Roundups, which would be a
| surprise to me given the availability of Roundups for
| vegetation control purpose around houses.
| ROTMetro wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_Ready
| hammock wrote:
| Thanks this is great data. Not sure who is downvoting you
| or why
| adrr wrote:
| Almost everything is neurotoxic depending on the dose. Sodium
| Chloride(Table Salt) will reek havoc on your brain and nervous
| systems if the concentration gets to high. Why you get muscle
| cramps and dizzy when dehydrated. Luckily the study addresses
| this and says that you have heavily dose rats to get a
| neurotoxic effect but humans will never see this dose under
| environmental exposure.
|
| > Most of studies of rodents analyzed in this review used doses
| of glyphosate or GBH that did not exceed the current NOAEL and
| ranged from 5 mg/kg [68] to 800 mg/kg [13]. These doses are not
| representative of human environmental exposures, which are in
| the range of mg/kg/day.
| downWidOutaFite wrote:
| The main point of that section you're quoting is that NOAEL
| has been set way too high and they didn't account for
| neurotoxicity. We need more studies. We don't really know at
| what levels neurotoxicity becomes a problem in human.
|
| > the data discussed herein suggest that these values may
| still be too high. The results analyzed in this review
| suggest that the ability of glyphosate, alone or in
| formulation, to produce neurotoxic effects in rodents has
| been underestimated.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Rotten eggs reek, wreaking havoc on your olfactory
| sensibilities.
| jonapro wrote:
| Silent Spring by Rachel Carson should be mandatory reading...
| rpmisms wrote:
| I like when studies show institutional knowledge. Any beekeeper
| can tell you that RoundUp messes with their hives, this confirms
| it.
| throwawaay31aq wrote:
| *An average of almost 130 pounds of glyphosate herbicides were
| sprayed per square mile in U.S. counties.
|
| - https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/toxic-herbicides-
| map-s...
|
| Maybe the rest of the world knows something we don't. Clearly
| in the US some other incentives are more powerful.
|
| https://www.wisnerbaum.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-l...
| justrealist wrote:
| US bulk agriculture exports are what keep vast swathes of the
| developing world from starving. GMOs, herbicides and
| pesticides are how the US produces immense quantities of
| cheap food for the rest of the world [1].
|
| I don't really care what the rest of the world whines about,
| when the US is the country actually keeping millions of the
| global poor alive.
|
| [1] https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/international-markets-u-
| s-tr...
| miguelazo wrote:
| No. The US (and European) ag subsidies are what fuel
| overproduction, undermine local production and markets in
| other countries, creating dependencies and poor diets.
| justrealist wrote:
| Ah yes. If only the US didn't sell food to subsaharan
| Africa, they'd learn to pull themselves up by their
| bootstraps! It's really the handouts that makes them
| dependent on the US government.
|
| The horseshoe theory of politics truly explains a lot.
| miguelazo wrote:
| This is literally what happened in Haiti with rice. Even
| Slick Willie finally apologized for it.
|
| https://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/11/bill_clinton_s_tr
| ade...
| soligern wrote:
| Overproduction? Of food?
| hammock wrote:
| Yes. Specific foods. Such as corn, sugar and soybean.
|
| "The US sugar program relies on import quotas and limits
| on domestic production to ensure domestic prices for raw
| and refined sugar are, on average, about 100% higher than
| world prices.
|
| 4,000 or so farms that raise sugar beet and sugarcane,
| many of which also plant most of their cropland to other
| heavily subsidized commodities such as corn and
| soybeans."
|
| https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/recapping-
| the-e...
| justrealist wrote:
| > and limits on domestic production
|
| How can you possibly be arguing that _limits_ on domestic
| production are causing _overproduction_?
| miguelazo wrote:
| They cause overproduction of poor substitutes. Like beets
| for sugar because of limits on sugar cane. Or monoculture
| GMO corn for HFCS. This skews diets and prices, usually
| for the worst.
| hammock wrote:
| The production limits effectively cap how much subsidy
| will be paid. The subsidy is still there. Without it,
| there would be less sugar grown and the land involved
| (mostly in the Florida Everglades and specifically
| developed to suit this sugar program) would go to other
| uses
| mistrial9 wrote:
| > I don't really care what the rest of the world whines
| about
|
| thank you for clarifying your point of view so well
| soligern wrote:
| To be fair, you're quoting only half the sentence when
| the second part of that sentence justifies/qualifies it
| rather well.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| It really doesn't. The person is saying it's OK to poison
| the US environment because we get good boy points for
| feeding the rest of the world (something the US does help
| with, but which impact is exaggerated for rhetorical
| effect). Apparently they're objecting to the fact that
| his research comes from a European institution and
| labeling that as 'whining'.
| shortlongterm wrote:
| It's easy in America. As soon as your industry becomes big
| enough you can afford to petition (lobby) the government to
| write regulations that favor your busines in your industry.
|
| Fortunately any American can petition their government.
| Collectively we could hire our own lobbyist to write better
| laws (and regulations).
| pkaye wrote:
| Meanwhile the EU food safety regulator is okay to continue
| using it.
|
| https://www.politico.eu/article/glyphosate-is-safe-to-use-
| in...
| jonhohle wrote:
| Maybe we should all dedicate a percentage of our income to
| hire lobbyists that would represent our interests to the
| government /s
| bozhark wrote:
| And call them politicians?
| damnesian wrote:
| lobbyists aren't supposed to write laws, but the reality is
| they probably do.
|
| Politics are pay-to-play. We do have organizations that
| started as citizens coming together to try to influence
| government, but unless you have a lot of money to throw
| around, your public interest research group is almost
| impossible to hear. Who do you think has outized influence-
| a group of citizens proposing common-sense reforms, or
| industry lobbyists paid a lot of money to protect an
| industry's bottom line?
| pc86 wrote:
| Our representatives are supposed to be our lobbyists. Part
| of the problem is people ignore when their lobbyist is
| doing a bad job when they wear the right color uniform, and
| refuse to acknowledge any good they do when they wear the
| other color uniform.
| gus_massa wrote:
| >> _An average of almost 130 pounds of glyphosate herbicides
| were sprayed per square mile in U.S. counties._
|
| Is this the weight of pure glyphosate, or it includes the
| solvents like water?
|
| Wikipedia says that the density of glyphosate is 1.7 but they
| have no units. Let's assume it's g/cm^3 (the density of water
| is 1g/cm^3, so it's a good guess.)
|
| From https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=130pounds+%2F+%281.
| 7g%2... this is 0.00001mm ~= 0.0000005 inches .
|
| 130kg sounds like a lot, but it's actually that a square mile
| is very big.
| [deleted]
| PaulHoule wrote:
| I had bees move into a window in my basement years ago,
| eventually that hive died but a beekeeper set up hives near our
| creek. A beehive has more departures and arrivals than any
| airport and the complexity of their behavior is staggering. Any
| poison that made bees just a little bit stupid could have a
| major impact on the effectiveness of a hive -- and if you take
| responsibility for bees there is a huge list of problems that
| can endanger a hive.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| There are applications where glyphosate is perfectly appropriate.
| The issues with it arise when
|
| A) farmers use it as a crop dissicant in large quantities to make
| their crops cheaper to harvest, outside the spec of the product
| and
|
| B) when it's used in unsuitable soil, temperature, and humidity
| conditions.
|
| In the right conditions it has a half life of a few days and will
| be completely inert in a couple of weeks. This is a relatively
| small impact for a pretty big benefit. In poorly suited
| conditions it can persist for months or years.
|
| We should just make it legal for use in situations where it
| decays quickly and harmlessly and disallow it's use in
| jurisdictions where the conditions are not appropriate for it's
| use. It's just a chemical, like any other chemical as long as
| it's used responsibly it can deliver incredible benefits. In this
| case cost-effectively feeding the world.
|
| If the price for all that is some impairment to bumblebees for a
| few weeks maybe we should weigh that against the benefits and
| make a rational decision.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| A - Doesn't sound like enough advantage over disadvantage.
|
| B - Sounds like it would need regulation? Who is making sure
| farmers are using it in this manner?
|
| It isn't just bumblebee impairment. Entire colonies die.
| Bumblebees are needed to pollinate a large percentage of our
| food -> Hence not a "rational decision".
|
| TO say nothing of impact on humans, and the half life in water
| runoff.
| throwawaay31aq wrote:
| [flagged]
| vixen99 wrote:
| Rational decisions demand access to all necessary information.
| Thus one might ask if the impairment described is restricted
| purely to bumblebees? Do we know? What is it that's so special
| about bumblebees as against other organisms such that they
| would be immune to 'just a chemical'?
| nithril wrote:
| It is an improvement to better understand the glyphosate
| effects. Rational decision cannot be taken by only
| considering the glyphosate effects. Decisions have to be
| taken with an holistic view on the agricultural systems.
|
| Eg. glyphosate might an option to regain control over weeds
| versus a systematic plow of the soil that has for
| consequences to damage its structure and its organisms.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-26 23:01 UTC)