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.
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.
This is fair. I did not mean to suggest there are no issues with wild bee populations declining. There certainly are.
Also it's important to note that anything we call a 'wild' honey bee now is just a descendant of a once 'domesticated' variety, originally brought over by European settlers. So if you trace it back far enough, protecting 'wild' bees is sort of funny since it is an 'artificial' element we introduced to our environment in the first place.
My gripe is these articles like to quote decrease in numbers observed by commercial bee keepers. They mislead people into thinking these are the same numbers scientists are observing in the overall wild bee population. Again, in America, something we introduced in the first place. They were not native.
I think it is important to understand that mono crop farms, with crops that depend on pollinators, work closely hand in hand with commercial bee keepers. I have never seen this explained to people by any of these articles, probably because it does not server their agenda.
Collateral damage from mono-crop farming practices (destruction of habitat, mass chemical application) is a big problem, but not being honest about the the history, and purposely hiding the large role commercial beekeepers play is not helpful.
To the greater point of "insects," I was a child in the 80s. A road trip (driving in unpopulated areas) resulted in tons of bugs smacking the windshield, reducing visibility. That's much reduced.
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.
"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 wonder what recent event governments could have used to show that this was a reasonable course of action to take. One that they could manage easily when it is in its early stages, having been warned about it. Perhaps one that affects humnans?
What thing could they have managed better that would make us trust our government in the UK to be using this known bee killer to manage a disease for a greater good later on?
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.
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.
The U.K. recently dropped tariffs from half of it's sugar imports as part of its post brexit, more outward looking trading policy: http://reut.rs/3s7MBYZ
The countries that export sugar to the UK (including E.U. ones) use neonicotinoids, so I guess this emergency measure is to soften the blow to UK farmers, and give them some breathing space while they transition to other crops. It makes sense for the UK to import sugar rather than produce it locally since extracting sugar from beet is far less efficient than extracting it from cane.
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.
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.
Many commercial beekeepers migrate their colonies during the year to provide pollination services to farmers and to reach the most abundant sources of nectar.
Millions of acres of U.S. fruit, vegetable, oilseed and legume seed crops depend on insect pollination, including honey bees.
The USDA has estimated that 80 percent of insect crop pollination is accomplished by honey bees. Approximately one-third of the total human diet is derived directly or indirectly from insect-pollinated plants (fruits, legumes and vegetables).
Crop Dependence
The almond crop is entirely dependent on honey bee pollination. Without honey bees, there would be no almonds. More than 80 percent of the world's almonds are produced in California.3 To pollinate California's approximately 790,000 bearing acres of almonds4 requires more than a million colonies of honey bees.
Numerous other crops are 90 percent dependent on honey bee pollination. Some of those crops include apples, avocados, blueberries, cherries, cranberries and sunflowers. Other crops such as cucumbers, kiwi fruit, melons and vegetables are also pollinated by honey bees.*
That's fair. I guess I'm technically off topic. I shouldn't assume the systems we've built in USA apply to every other country.
It's a rant that's been building up in my head for a while, so I had to get it out :) You see these "Bees are dying" stories all the time now, and they use the same sketchy logic, and like to present the topic in a very self serving way.
In regards to this specific story, the article admits that sugar beets are not a flowering crop. There would be no reason for wild honey bees to travel in these fields.
But collateral damage from chemicals washing into waterways, or some bees flying onto the property I'm sure is a big problem. But enough to endanger the entire wild population?
Despite having smaller farms, I would be very surprised if farmers in the UK were not working with local beekeepers. Anytime you see a those hive boxes sitting randomly in a field somewhere, this is what you are seeing.
Here in the UK, I've never seen hive boxes sitting randomly in a field :)
Since I posted my original comment, I was interested to find out more. My wife knows a couple of wives of farmer, so she asked 2 on my behalf, and both said they don't do anything like this, and haven't heard of it either. Might depend what crops you are farming, and where?
Is it possible they are growing crops that don't require pollination? Many do not.
Even though farms are smaller in the UK, am I correct in assuming that many farmers still practice mono-crop? If they do, then depending on wild pollinators alone is never going to be the best strategy. Crop yields will always increase significantly by introducing farmed bee-hives.
It says in the organization even runs a 'National Pollination Service' with a sitting 'Pollination Secretary'.
I think beekeeping is a very interesting industry. I'm sure many people in the UK and the States are probably unaware of these practices and how integral they are to farming.
mega acreage farms seem to be an american thing for some reason. read somewhere that the avg. american farm is ~100x larger than the average chinese farm for example
More arable land than nearly any other nation, comparatively thinly populated, early leader in mechanized farming, steady consolidation of small family farms into large corporate ones for many generations.
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.
I think this is especially troublesome from the National Farmers Union. They were simultaneously campaigning publicly to keep EU standards (to protect their members from cheaper imports), whilst privately lobbying the government to lower standards. They have lost an awful lot of credibility with environmentalists over this.
For a bit of added intrigue, cane sugar producers Tate & Lyle were major Brexit supporters in order to get tarrifs on cane sugar dropped.
I don’t think there’s a big difference between “wild” bees and the “domesticated” or farmed bees that you seem to believe exists.
I’m in Ohio, and I’ve only been keeping bees for 3-4 years now, but I’ve attended lectures and talked to many longtime keepers in my area (Ohio).
I specifically asked about wild bees, and the answer I got was unexpected, but made sense once it was explained to me.
The PhD speaker, who’s worked in pesticide research his entire career, explained that around here American Foul Brood wiped out > 95% of hives in many areas over the span of a decade (70s or 80s?) — and he said there’s no reason to believe that the “wild” bees fared any differently. In fact, he believes we still have wild bees because of natural swarming behavior — meaning our wild bees are heavily linked with the commercially managed hives.
I can’t speak to anywhere else, but it wouldn’t surprise me to discover that the wild and managed bees are essentially the same.
Technically you are right, there isn't much difference between them because anything we call a 'wild' honey bee in America, was once a 'domesticated' honey bee brought over by European settlers.
Also, I did not mean to suggest wild bees are not in trouble too, my gripe is these articles, without mentioning, like to quote numbers commercial beekeepers have observed in their hives.
They never explain to folks how the commercial bee-keeping industry works. They just want you to think everything is 'natural', and all these giant farms are being pollinated by wild bees alone. They aren't.
You point isn't wrong, the wild and managed bees are essentially the same. The 'wild' honey bees are just domesticated ones that escaped, or didn't come back to the hive. The problem is commercial farming in America tends to be all 'mono-crop' and by it's nature has destroyed any biodiversity and any chance of wild bees thriving. So they depend on commercial beekeepers to come in and do the dirty work.
It goes both ways, it's a mutually beneficial arrangement becuase the beekeepers get access to high quality food for their bees, which will then in turn produce more honey. Unless 75% of the hive dies or fails to return, and the colonies collapse. Which is happening all too often now. It's a really big problem to be sure.
Sounds like you keep bees so you probably are more knowledgeable than me. Sorry, I just get mad because I can think of very few articles I seen on the topic that explain the topic in a reasonable way. It is clear they are trying to push their own agenda.
Good information I found on the National Honey Board website:
> The PhD speaker, who’s worked in pesticide research his entire career, explained that around here American Foul Brood wiped out > 95% of hives in many areas over the span of a decade (70s or 80s?) — and he said there’s no reason to believe that the “wild” bees fared any differently. In fact, he believes we still have wild bees because of natural swarming behavior — meaning our wild bees are heavily linked with the commercially managed hives.
Not trying to discount this, as I know basically nothing about pesticides or bees, but doesn't this seem a little circular? The conclusion that the bees in the wild are heavily linked with our bees is based on the assumption that they were fairly similar in the first place, i.e. "there's no reason to believe the wild bees faired any differently". In other words, "the wild bees are doing about the same now because they did about the same before", but without any strong evidence that they did about the same in the first place. I assume I'm missing something?
There are multiple species of bees. I’m specifically referring to honey bees. I’ve not studied the other varieties.
I’m not aware of any studies, and most would have taken place well before the internet and electronic records were a thing.
I can state that my hives have swarmed several times, so those bees were “out there” — and the genetics I see in 2nd and 3rd generation brood show there’s quite a few different breeds in this area.
Beekeepers will go out and gather swarms or extract them from unwanted places if they know about them, and they have capacity. Beekeepers losing their hives drives up demand for harvesting wild ones.
So even if that weren’t a two way street, the wild ones would still be under duress.
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?
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.
You're not wrong, but 'wild' honey bees in general aren't the ones being exposed to large commercial farms. Sure there is collateral damage, but that's not enough to endanger honey bees as a whole.
It's also important to note that 'wild' honey bees in America are not native. They were brought over by European settlers, and the ones who leave the hive or get left behind have formed the populations we now call 'wild'.
Maybe this article is doesn't apply since it pertains to the UK, and I'm not really familiar with the situation there. But my main point, is in regards to these articles you see all the time, that make it appear as if honey bees are on the verge of extinction.
In regards to the USA, if you write an article about honey been dying, and you purposefully don't mention the history of how they arrived here in the first place, and purposefully don't explain the massive role commercial beekeepers play, it is not very helpful. It is clear they are serving their own agenda.
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.
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.
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 think you're right, both things are certainly true.
I might have gotten a little lost in my angry rant, but what I'm trying to say is many of these articles are not presenting the subject in a fair manner.
If the pesticides harm the beekeepers bees, they are certainly hurting wild bees too. Collateral damage from farms is real, but the percentage of wild honey bees that come in contact with these farms has to be a small percentage. The fact that these farms destroyed the bee's (and every other animal's) natural habitat in the first place is never mentioned. It's as if they want these farms to continue to operate, but without any chemicals, which in reality is impossible.
It would be best if we got all our food from small, diverse, organic farms but that's unfortunately not the system we have. I wish it was.
Also, not once ever have I seen the history of honey bees explained. Everyone wants to cry over the 'wild' honey bees dying, meanwhile nobody mentions that they are not native to America. They were brought over by European settlers. So any 'wild' populations we have in America were artificially introduced, but they want everyone to think that it's natural and they have always been here. And they want you to think that all farms, no matter the size or type rely on 'wild' honey bees to pollinate their fields.
It's unfortunate, but it's just not how out system works in the United States. So I'm trying to say I'm frustrated explaining this over and over to people that have been mislead by certain groups who only care about pushing their own agenda. If we want have a real conversation about bees, then you can't leave out the history of how they came here, and you can't leave out the large role commercial beekeepers play in our agricultural system.
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 Rübenrüsselkäfer).
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.
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.
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.
Which is fine, as long as no weeds or mushrooms grow in that entire field, and a freak rain doesn’t rinse it into the drainage ditches where weeds and mushrooms absolutely grow, in abundance.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Of course, but you don't seem to have picked up or entertain my implied sentiment and position that public policy is great at best and deception at worse and people often vote against their own interests due to lack of educated individuals, with agreed upon facts and goals, as well as critical thinking being a cultural, societal, worldwide human "common".
For a successful civillization reality must take precedence over public relations for Nature cannot be fooled.
People are just fing resistant to change and we've really made a mess in a lot of ways not good for the hive or the bess and unbound externality called willful ignorance is burning away at the roots of society, jeopardizing the tree of consciouness.
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.
We're only about 200 years into such decision making having the ability to effect things so quickly on a macroscopic scale. Your statement amounts to standing on the crest of the wave and saying "see we're fine!" Unaware of the potential fall and disregarding the harm that short term solutions have already caused.
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...
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.
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.
I don't know specifically about Britain, but most bee species are solitary, and without a hive, they're not as vulnerable to disease, or poison transferred back to their home. Other types of bees accidentally exposed would likely only die themselves, not quickly spread it to and kill other populations.
2nd sentence of 2nd paragraph says: "honeybees, which are actually not even native to North America, Europe or Australia"
guess it depends on how you define "native"
We had lots of leverage over nature in the middle ages. By that point Britain had little woodland left, and what remained was often managed. People were digging ditches and creating hedgerow as a boundary.
Larger mammals like bear, lynx, and wolf were extinct or on their way out. Large birds of prey were aggressively persecuted. There was even land reclamation as far back as Roman times.
Humans have been dominant over wildlife in Britain for a long time. There are probably American zip codes areas that have more untouched landscape than the whole of britain.
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...
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].
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.
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.
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:
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 ?
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.
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 £18m 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?
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.
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.
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).
Yes, for America there's the patriot act which removed your freedoms for safety. Even right now with corona, as controversial as it sounds, it is the question of freedom vs security.
Europe's sentiment is they want more security and are happy to give away their freedoms without a thought. Then you realise how important your freedom was to you when it's gone.
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.
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'.
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...
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
I went to buy a fruit fly spray at my local nursery and the sales rep said it’s not stocked because it kills bees. He claimed that was why there were so few bees around. I replied that it was more likely because the local council banned amateur bee keeper’s backyard hives. I’ve tried a replacement which is about 80% as effective but has to be sprayed after every rain shower or every fortnight whichever comes first.
This is even more perverse than it seems. In many parts of the UK there is no sugar industry but sugar beet are still being grown...to feed biodigesters, to generate electricity to help meet green energy targets. Subsidised of course. Subsidised to save the environment by destroying the environment.
This reminds me of a discussion on pesticides I had with a friend working for the FNSEA (a French agricultural union) and one of his point that, if a pesticide is banned, farmers will just use another (which might more or less efficient, more or less targeted...)
I recall a science show (Quirks & Quarks) here in Canada explaining this. It's not just that neonicotinoids cause harm to bees but the bees actually prefer it. Bees go out of their way to collect pollen on plants with neonicotinoid pesticides on them.
Emergency use, I assume is acceptable but we all know that this is just the start and that emergency window will get larger and larger and we will see no end unfortunately.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.