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.
And it interrupts the Shikimate Pathway in plants. Monsanto says that Roundup is safe for animals because the Shikimate Pathway does not exist in animals.
But it exists in most of the bacteria that live in animals. So it kills off good bacteria inside the bees, that is why there is overgrowth of other flora.
Monsanto will not be able to keep a lid on this forever...
It’ll be interesting to see what happens (with the bacteria and all) with weeds becoming glyphosate-resistant.
And then there is the similarity between glophasate and glycine, causing protein synthesis much heartache and extra work.
But Monzanto is not to be blamed, no they hire people to write articles like this one.
ping
According to the professor at U Wis extension course several weeks ago there is no such data by any pesticide harming bees when used properly or in combination. His point was: THERE IS NO DATA, just anecdotal stories, beliefs and such.
However, the whole subject is highly controversial with claims made all over the place but there is no data to back up any claim - it just has not been studied in any depth and most products have never been looked at in connection with bees.
The whole herbicide/pesticide thing is just what I said but in different words.
The honey from my own backyard is delicious
as you appear knowledgable about this situation, hopefully you can answer aquestion that’s been bothering me; the lack of honeybees on white clover...when I was a kid, 60 years ago, if I walked barefoot across the lawns, which were always mottled with white clover, I could anticipate getting stung; today, I stroll across a nearby meadow loaded with clover, and see nary a honeybee...I see plenty of bumble bees, but no honeybees...
is it simply a decline in population, or is something else happening...?
I’m afraid our Extension friend is mistaken. There is a whole body of peer reviewed research that discusses synergism in pesticide use.
Note well that I do not conclude (as is the case with most reputable researchers) that CCD is caused by the neonicotinoids.
But to suggest that insecticides that are clearly labeled as anywhere from moderately to highly toxic to bees aren’t toxic to bees is simply wrong. But that’s not the point, the point is to clearly understand that if a pesticide with mode of action “X” is applied to a crop, and another pesticide with mode of action “Y” is applied to hives for control of varroa, then the result of exposure to the combination of the two would be X+Y. It clearly is not. Here is an abstract that discusses such a scenario:
“Recently, the widespread distribution of pesticides detected in the hive has raised serious concerns about pesticide exposure on honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) health. A larval rearing method was adapted to assess the chronic oral toxicity to honey bee larvae of the four most common pesticides detected in pollen and wax - fluvalinate, coumaphos, chlorothalonil, and chloropyrifos - tested alone and in all combinations. All pesticides at hive-residue levels triggered a significant increase in larval mortality compared to untreated larvae by over two fold, with a strong increase after 3 days of exposure. Among these four pesticides, honey bee larvae were most sensitive to chlorothalonil compared to adults. Synergistic toxicity was observed in the binary mixture of chlorothalonil with fluvalinate at the concentrations of 34 mg/L and 3 mg/L, respectively; whereas, when diluted by 10 fold, the interaction switched to antagonism. Chlorothalonil at 34 mg/L was also found to synergize the miticide coumaphos at 8 mg/L. The addition of coumaphos significantly reduced the toxicity of the fluvalinate and chlorothalonil mixture, the only significant non-additive effect in all tested ternary mixtures. We also tested the common ‘inert’ ingredient N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone at seven concentrations, and documented its high toxicity to larval bees. We have shown that chronic dietary exposure to a fungicide, pesticide mixtures, and a formulation solvent have the potential to impact honey bee populations, and warrants further investigation. We suggest that pesticide mixtures in pollen be evaluated by adding their toxicities together, until complete data on interactions can be accumulated.”
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0077547
This is a case of the left hand (Beekeepers) not knowing what the right hand (Farmers) is doing. The important takeaway is for both parties to be fully aware of what each other is using and when.
Tell you what ... since I do not remember Doctor X’s name and did not write down his email address, I’ll get that info this week and post it to you so you can take it up with him directly.
I dont know if it was a die off from the new pesticide use or a lull in bee keeping or maybe both and several other factors that triggered the panic of the Colony Collapse Disorder around 2005-07. It might have just been the squeaky wheel syndrome, but it got me interested.
Honey bees have been doing their thing for a very long time. The same way, tirelessly for thousands of years.
The honey industry is big $$ so some big bee farmers feed their bees HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup = CHEAP) to maximize profit. This honey tastes like crap.
Literally, shipping containers FULL of Not-Honey have been seized coming into the U.S. from China.
BAYER (aspirin co.) sells more neonicotinoid pesticides than anything else and are in it for the big $$.
The management of honey bees is very local, independent and sporadic as humans tend to be. If there were managed or feral hives within 2 or 3 miles, as the bee flys, to your childhood clover field, the bees will find it. One or two years of the farmer planting something that doesnt produce enough nectar for the bee survival could drive them away. Or the 6+ years of screaming heat and drought like we had here in Kansas will make it hard for a beekeeper to manage successfully. With this years moisture and plant growth, everyones hives around here are busting at the seams with honey and splitting their hives or capturing swarms and starting new ones. And just having one hive in a an area that has been bee free will produce more nectar producing plants than with out them due to the increased natural pollination of the bees. More bees + more nectar producing plants = more bees and more HONEY.
Starting my hives in my backyard is one of the most ‘real’ things I have done in a while. Its like a huge and serius ant farm ‘cept they make the best sweetener the world has ever known, and they fly and sting the $hit outta you if you are careless! I started with 2 empty wood boxes in the spring and I would estimate there are at least 30,000 or 40,000 bees tending to over 60-80 pounds of honey right now.
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.