After reviewing over 100 new peer-reviewed studies into the pesticides, the European Academies Science Advisory Council � representing 29 national academies, including Britain�s august Royal Society concludes that �there is an increasing body of evidence� that their widespread use �has severe negative effects� on beneficial insects and other wildlife, including bees and birds, and may even make pest outbreaks worse. And it adds that their widespread use in seed dressings is �inconsistent� with basic principles laid down in EC directives.
& the Conservatives want the EU neonic ban lifted!!!?
Well they think it will please their little friends, don't they. I know some farmers are finding it more difficult without, as they have got used to using them, but it is important that the ban continues. I didn't see how seed dressing could affect bees at first, but the evidence seems to be mounting up that they are doing damage.
I don't think either colony collapse disorder or winter losses are 'caused' by neonics though. I think they have muliple causes, and the more that can be cleared out of the way, the closer we will be to finding a solution.
It is a problem for farmers, but in the past they have managed by various methods, including sowing at different times of year, to adapt. I am not minimising their problems, but if this morotoriam on the use of neonocs. shows that bees recover and they really were affecting various pollinators, then they will have to do without them. No pollinators is rather more serious.
Tavascarow
Joined: 06 Aug 2006 Posts: 8407 Location: South Cornwall
Posted: Tue Apr 21, 15 7:33 am Post subject:
& not just polinators but avian species as well. & I would bet that the decline in bat populations are also associated.
There is huge amounts of peer reviewed science proving the damage it does.
Not only should neonics be banned but it's time for testing to be carried out independently before product release. At the moment testing of new agrochems is done by the manufacturer. We have just heard how Monsanto have known about glyphosate's cancer risk for thirty five years & covered it up!!
Can we really continue to trust big business to test their own products.
Also the old LD50 test that has been used for decades is past its sell by date.
Modern agrochems work in very subtle ways & just taking a sample of non target species, & dosing them till half are dead doesn't cover any of the other ways these chemicals can effect.
This was done with pharmacuticals, agro and other chemicals, to both speed up the process and reduce the amount of money spent by the public purse. I agree with you, but some way has to be found that spreads the cost of the testing so that while the results are in the public domain, and carried out by public servants rather than the companies. Perhaps the companies paying for most of the safety testing with a small contribution from the state before they can sell in that country, but data from other countries such as the US and other European countries being scrutinesed so that there is less duplication, but any potentially flawed tests, other requirements of points of concern raised since the tests were carried out are covered.
using existing data from previous testing sounds sensible but i recon i could get a "safety certificate"for almost anything in the "right" countries.
how much does a corrupt "minister of testing" cost in a country of exploitation?
That is why I suggested that only data from reliable sources should be used. It is well known that some places data is dubious and that some laboratories are less good than others.
Tavascarow
Joined: 06 Aug 2006 Posts: 8407 Location: South Cornwall
Posted: Thu Apr 23, 15 3:57 pm Post subject:
I see no reason why the manufacturers shouldn't pay the full cost of testing in every country. Although I wouldn't have a problem with a EU testing system.
The manufacturers make huge profits from their poisons so why do governments need to foot any of the bill? Other than overseeing & regulating the testing laboratories.
im fairly sure i half heard a news report this am that suggested that bees get a "addiction" to neonics which makes them seek food supplies containing them leading to toxic levels in the bees above what would be expected from general environmental exposure. and tragic results.
i cant find the scientific paper but a quick google leads to the news reports
Tavascarow
Joined: 06 Aug 2006 Posts: 8407 Location: South Cornwall
im fairly sure i half heard a news report this am that suggested that bees get a "addiction" to neonics which makes them seek food supplies containing them leading to toxic levels in the bees above what would be expected from general environmental exposure. and tragic results.
i cant find the scientific paper but a quick google leads to the news reports
Researchers found that compared with areas without neonicotinoid seed treatments, in the vicinity of crops treated with clothianidin populations of wild bees were slashed in half, solitary bees did not nest at all, and bumblebee nests were half as heavy and produced less than a third as many queens.
This evidence follows the recent revelation that the UK Government�s own bumblebee study actually revealed correlations between neonicotinoid insecticide contamination and bee health, but despite knowing better the Government misleadingly claimed that their research had found "no relationship between colony growth and neonicotinoid residues"
Quote:
�The pesticide companies have been hiding behind the absence of sufficiently robust field studies to call for inaction in protecting wild pollinators from insecticides. This position is no longer tenable in light of this highly conclusive study.� Said Matt Shardlow, Buglife CEO. �We hope this puts the debate about impacts of neonicotinoids on bees and pollinators to bed, because there are growing concerns about the impacts of these toxins on soil life and in freshwater and nothing has been done to regulate this environmental damage, it is time for the authorities to reassess the wider environmental impacts of neonicotinoids and take further action to restrict their use�.
I know from personal experience how bloody addictive nicotine is (nine months & still getting urges).
About 5% of the oilseed rape crop originally planted was lost to flea beetle damage last autumn, with 1.5% redrilled, leaving 22,000ha ripped up in England, equating to some 3.5%.
Quote:
The survey says England and Wales plantings would have been 5% higher if neonicotinoid treatment had been available, equivalent to an extra 38,000ha drilled.
I notice they don't remark on the losses to pigeons. I don't know about flea beetle, but we mainly get autumn sown here, possibly because of flea beetle. I know we get tremendous losses due to pigeons some years as you can see the huge bare patches in the fields, and pigeons taking off from them.
While I understand the problem with flea beetle, there is a serious potential problem with neonics and bees, and the rape won't get pollinated without the bees, so killing the pest and the pollinator is going to reduce the yield even further.
Tavascarow
Joined: 06 Aug 2006 Posts: 8407 Location: South Cornwall
About 5% of the oilseed rape crop originally planted was lost to flea beetle damage last autumn, with 1.5% redrilled, leaving 22,000ha ripped up in England, equating to some 3.5%.
Quote:
The survey says England and Wales plantings would have been 5% higher if neonicotinoid treatment had been available, equivalent to an extra 38,000ha drilled.
Who are the HGCA? I like to know who pays the piper. I definitely wouldn't expect FWi to be anti pesticides considering how much advertising revenue they receive.
View Latest Posts