Posted on 08/27/2016 5:04:36 AM PDT by Kaslin
As stubborn facts ruin their narrative that neonicotinoid pesticides are causing a honeybee-pocalypse, environmental pressure groups are shifting to new scares to justify their demands for “neonic” bans.
Honeybee populations and colony numbers in the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia and elsewhere are growing. It is also becoming increasingly clear that the actual cause of bee die-offs and “colony collapse disorders” is not neonics, but a toxic mix of predatory mites, stomach fungi, other microscopic pests, and assorted chemicals employed by beekeepers trying to control the beehive infestations.
Naturally, anti-pesticide activists have seized on a recent study purporting to show that wild bee deaths in Britain have been correlated with neonic use in oil seed rape fields (canola is a type of OSR). In a saga that has become all too common in the environmental arena, their claims were amplified by news media outlets that share many activist beliefs and biases – and want to sell more subscriptions and advertising.
(Honeybees represent a small number of species that humans have domesticated and keep in hives, to produce honey and pollinate crops. Many are repeatedly trucked long distances, to pollinate almond and other crops as they flower. By contrast, thousands of species of native or wild bees also flourish across the continents, pollinating plants with no human assistance.)
The recent Center for Ecology and Hydrology study examined wild bee population trends over an 18-year period that ended in 2011. It concluded that there was a strong correlation between population and distribution numbers for multiple species of British wild bees and what study authors called their “measure of neonic dose” resulting from the pesticide, which is used as a seed coating for canola crops.
The study is deeply flawed, at every stage – making its analysis and conclusions meaningless. For example, bee data were collected by amateur volunteers, few of whom were likely able to distinguish among some 250 species of UK wild bees. But if even one bee of any species was identified in a 1-by-1 kilometer area during at least two of the study period’s 18 years, the area was included in the CEH study.
This patchy, inconsistent approach means the database that formed the very foundation for the entire study was neither systematic nor reliable, nor scientific. Some species may have dwindled or disappeared in certain areas due to natural causes, or volunteers may simply have missed them. We can never know.
There is no evidence that the CEH authors ever actually measured neonic levels on bees or in pollen collected from OSR fields that the British wild bees could theoretically have visited. Equally relevant, by the time neonics on seeds are absorbed into growing plant tissue, and finally expressed on flecks of pollen, the levels are extremely low: 1.3–3.0 parts per billion, the equivalent of 1–3 seconds in 33 years.
(Coating seeds ensures that pesticides are incorporated directly into plant tissue – and target only harmful pests that feed on the crops. It reduces or eliminates the need to spray crops, which can kill birds, bats and beneficial insects that are in the fields or impacted by accidental “over-sprays.” Indeed, numerous field studies on two continents have found no adverse effects from neonics on honeybees at the hive level.)
A preliminary U.S. Environmental Protection Agency risk assessment for one common neonic sets the safe level for residues on pollen at 25 ppb. Any observable effects on honeybee colonies are unlikely below that. Perhaps wild bees are more susceptible. However, at least two wild bee species (alfalfa leaf cutters and miner bees) are thriving in areas where OSR/canola fields are widespread, and the CEH study found reduced numbers of certain wild bees that do not collect pollen from oil seed rape.
Perhaps most important, the CEH authors appear to have assumed that any declines in wild bee numbers were due to neonicotinoid pesticides in OSR fields, even at very low doses. They discounted or ignored other factors, such as bee diseases, weather and land use changes.
For instance, scientists now know that parasitic Varroa destructor mites and phorid flies severely affect honeybees; so do the Nosema ceranae gut fungus, tobacco ringspot virus and deformed wing virus. Under certain circumstances, those diseases are known to spread to bumblebees and other wild bees.
Significant land development and habitat losses occurred in many parts of Britain from 1930 to 1990, causing wild bee populations todecline dramatically. Thankfully, they have since rebounded – during the same period that neonic use was rising rapidly, replacing older insecticides that clearly are toxic to bees! The CEH team also failed to address those facts.
To compensate for these shortcomings (or perhaps to mask them), the CEH researchers created a sophisticated computer model that supposedly describes and explains the 18 years of wild bee data.
However, as any statistician or modeler knows, models and output are only as good as the assumptions behind them and data fed into them. Garbage in/Garbage out (GIGO) remains the fundamental rule. Greater sophistication simply means more refined refuse, and faster computers simply generate faulty, misleading results more rapidly.
The CEH models are essentially “black boxes.” Key components of their analytical methodologies and algorithms have not been made public and thus cannot be verified by independent reviewers.
However, the flawed data gathering, unjustified assumptions about neonic impacts, and failure to consider the likely effects of multiple bee diseases and parasites make it clear that the CEH model and conclusions are essentially worthless – and should not be used to drive or justify pesticide policies and regulations.
As Prime Minister Jim Hacker quipped in the theatrical version of the British comedy series Yes, Prime Minister: “Computer models are no different from fashion models. They’re seductive, unreliable, easily corrupted, and they lead sensible people to make fools of themselves.”
And yet studies like this constantly make headlines. That’s hardly surprising. Anti-pesticide campaigners have enormous funding and marvelous PR instincts. Researchers know their influence and next grant can depend on issuing studies that garner alarmist headlines and reflect prevailing news themes and imminent government actions. The news media want to sell ads and papers, and help drive public policy-making.
The bottom line is fundamental: correlation does not equal causation. Traffic lights are present at many intersections where accidents occur; but that does not mean the lights caused most or all of the accidents. The CEH authors simply do not demonstrate that a neonic-wild bee cause-effect relationship exists.
The price to society includes not just the countless dollars invested in useless research, but tens of billions in costs inflicted by laws and regulations based on or justified by that research. Above all, it can lead to “cures” that are worse than the alleged diseases: in this case, neonic bans would cause major crop losses and force growers to resort to older pesticides that clearly are harmful to bees.
There is yet another reason why anti-pesticide forces are focusing now on wild bees. In sharp contrast to the situation with honeybees, where we have extensive data and centuries of beekeeper experience, we know very little about the thousands of wild bee species: where they live and forage, what risks they face, even how many there really are. That makes them a perfect poster child for anti-neonic activists.
They can present all kinds of apocalyptic scenarios, knowing even far-fetched claims cannot be disproven easily, certainly not in time to address new public unease amid discussions about a regulatory proposal.
The Center for Ecology and Hydrology study involved seriously defective data gathering and analytical methodologies. More troubling, it appears to have been released in a time and manner calculated to influence a European Union decision on whether to continue or rescind a ban on neonicotinoid pesticides.
Sloppy or junk science is bad enough in and of itself. To use it deliberately, to pressure lawmakers or regulators to issue cures that may be worse than alleged diseases, is an intolerable travesty.
The Left is like the little boy who cried wolf. Everything is dire, critical, we will all die if we don’t (fill in latest cause celebre here.)
In the early sixties they were telling us school children we would be in an ice age in the ‘70’s, and, at about the same time run out of oil. They kept moving the date forward and then, as some point, decided that global warming had more money in it. So they switched to that. The news tick-tocks from Swine Flu to Beepocalypse to Trump will incinerate us all.
I’ve reached a point where I don’t even glance at these articles beyond the headline. One day, the wolf will eat the boy and nobody will give a damn.
A guy I work with is a third generation bee-keeper. He says the main reason bees are dying out is because they’ve bred so much aggression out of the bees that they no longer defend their hives the way they used to.
I hope it's soon.
Bees are doing fine. There ARE some pesticide kills, contrary to this article, but that’s usually stupidity and misapplication.
The big issue is varroa: they weaken hives and make them susceptible to all sorts of nastiness. The cure, to the extent there is one, is to have more hives and accept that a higher mortality rate is here to stay.
Here’s the story on this subject which I gained at an educational seminar three weeks ago for pesticide users by a scientist (I forget his name offhand, but he is well known in the University of Wisconsin system).
Short answer to the effects of pesticides on bees: no one knows because the research has not been done. I should add that research in this case involves product by product studies. There is as I recall one product formulation that has been well documented (again I forget which) in studies and does not have any effect on bees. But it is the ONLY one.
All stories are either A) anecdotal, B) are exaggerated, C) due to human error.
One of the most popular among the anti-pesticide crowd is an incident which happened in Oregon. “50,000 bees in mass killing due to pesticides!!” Truth was that it was 25,000 bees. Why did they die? Linden trees were being sprayed by a commercial applicator for Japanese Beatles - this is normal. I forget the product in question, but the product label clearly says, “Warning: Do NOT use on Linden trees in flower.” Pesticide labels are law. Not following the label directions in a prosecutable violation.
The commercial sprayer clearly ignored or did not read the product label and so killed the bees. It was his fault not the product’s.
All pesticide products are divided into a few limited chemical groups. Manufacturers reformulate a particular product for their needs. This new pesticide product is not the same as a similar one by the same or another manufacturer even though the use (target) is the same and so must undergo a testing regime against the target and against various environmental concerns of which bees are just one.
Many laymen think that the only really bad pesticide is glyphosate (aka: Roundup) - its actually among the more benign when properly administered (label directions followed). Most formulations break down in a few days into harmless compounds. There are strict rules about just how often these products can be applied, and in what percentage per acre during a given year in commercial applications (non commercial users just want it to work and seldom read the label or understand what they are reading hence the rise of RTUs (ready to use) products).
There is NO research on the effects of glyphosate on bees.
In this case, I do not believe neonictinoids should be written off.
We do end up ingesting them at certain points in the food chain.
Glyphosate is an herbicide.
My Italian ladies are as docile as they come, but this time of year, when the flow is kicking and they know winter is coming, you better be in full protective gear if you get near their honey.
Every agitation while working with them increases their buzz tone/freq. Every time that happens my body releases a bit more adrenaline. I can take it for about 45 min to an hour then its time to do something else.
Exhilarating to say the least.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I dont know what to believe about all this.
I do know a few things:
1. The honey from my own backyard is delicious, and a blessing from my Creator. The time I have spent fiddling with the bees with my children and grand-children is priceless to me.
2. 50,000 bees is not very many. One large hive can have more than that.
3. Having the FDA, USDA, EPA involved is not a good thing.
4.We need a Bee-FReeper Keeper Ping list
All I know is that I am up to my neck in bumblebees. The are still going after the flowers on my raspberry bushes, which makes picking the berries getting ripe “interesting”.
I took bee keeping as a 4-H project many many moons. It was an amazing educational experience to understand the social hierarchy. I was given a queen pupae sp? to start my hive. It worked out for awhile but disease eventually took me out of business.
Even today, my family’s farm in SE CO allows a beekeeper to bring in @70 hives for the alfalfa in the vicinity. What a treat every fall to receive several quarts of honey as a thanks from the keeper. My elderly folks use the honey as Christmas presents.
The biggest challenge for bees in our area are the damn bears. We use lots of electric fence and it seems to work.
It is, it also could have some affect on insects.
For what it's worth, I can recall attempts to introduce panic over 'bee kills' way back in 1973.
I didn't believe any of that nonsense then either.
The funny part is that for beekeepers, their hives prosperity is their prosperity, so being a smart group of people, they have acted wisely, judiciously, and cooperatively with each other, (with minimal government involvement, I should add), and there are now far *more* bees than there were before the “colony collapse disorder” was first recognized.
How do they do this?
In past, beekeepers intentionally limited the number of hives instead of propagating new ones. Because larger hives equals more honey (and less work). However, when their hives were at risk, they began cloning their hives.
Granted more work, but more hives also produce more honey.
Next, beekeepers will transport their hives to fertilize particular crops. This created a problem because a healthy hives territory could overlap with an unhealthy hive, typically a wild hive.
Their solution was to both set exclusive territories and timetables from each other, and to keep a watch for wild hives.
Lastly, they work with farmers to avoid areas that have been recently treated with pesticides. By working around the problem, like using pesticides after the flowering cycle is over, no problem.
Yes it is but it is also called almost everywhere a pesticide as it is in the same “family” of control products and a generic name. And BTW, weeds or unwanted vegetation are pests so the appellation, pesticide, is correct again. A pest does not have to be an animal or insect.
Specific products for animal pests (deer, rabbit, etc) are also pesticides which do not kill (unless over- or mis-applicated) vegetation. Others kill insects and are labeled insecticides - which kill insect pests, but not vegetation.
Herbicides kill (or are supposed to) only vegetation which are pests as I said earlier. And so glyphosate is a pesticide and an herbicide - it just depends on the use and application.
The term “pesticide” is used to refer to any substance that is used to control an unwanted organism. An herbicide is a subset of pesticides that is intended to control unwanted plants, just as an insecticide is used to control unwanted insects. Another way to put it is that all herbicides are pesticides, but not all pesticides are herbicides.
That said, just because a particular substance is termed an “herbicide” does not mean that it will not or cannot have pesticidal effects upon other life forms, indeed one of the big takeaways from investigating the causes of Colony Collapse Disorder in bees has been the synergistic effect of different pesticides on bees between products used by beekeepers to, for instance, control Varroa Mite and whatever products are being used on the crop the bees are pollinating. Studies have shown that there exists the potential for a exponential increase in lethality if bees are exposed to two or more different pesticides, even if taken separately they are beneath toxic levels.
Pesticides are more rightly classified by their mode of action rather than herbicide, insecticide, fungicide, etc.
Umm...yeah. My bad for taking “herbicide” and “pesticide” literally.
And always follow application instructions. :)
“As Prime Minister Jim Hacker quipped in the theatrical version of the British comedy series Yes, Prime Minister: “Computer models are no different from fashion models. They’re seductive, unreliable, easily corrupted, and they lead sensible people to make fools of themselves.”
What a great quote!
Don’t forget the population explosion. Kill your “future”-kids to save the planet then import the third world to fill the ranks of the low cost worker (not necessarily low skilled worker)...
Interesting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.