Slashdot Mirror
Studies Link Pesticides To Bee Colony Collapse Disorder
T Murphy writes "Neonicotinoid pesticides, designed to attack insects such as beetles and aphids, have been shown to harm bees' ability to navigate back to the hive. While initially assumed safe in low enough, non-fatal doses for bees, two papers have shown that may not be the case. Although the studies don't directly study the Colony Collapse Disorder, the scientists believe these pesticides are likely a contributing factor."
Considering the importance of bees to agriculture, I think the potential of any link between pesticides and colony collapses warrants both extreme concern and funding.
But hey, maybe you're looking forward to do the day we eat nothing but algal cultures or soylent green.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Considering the importance of bees to agriculture, I think the potential of any link between pesticides and colony collapses warrants both extreme concern and funding.
But hey, maybe you're looking forward to do the day we eat nothing but algal cultures or soylent green.
I'm looking forward to the day when we use logic and reason instead of emotion and fear to get science funding and sway public opinion.
Where the heck do you get "likely a contributing factor" == "everyone panic now! And give us more money."? This is how science works. These scientists are only publishing what their results will support and are not overstating the results. Other scientists will verify this work. Others (and possibly the same ones) will extend it if their conclusions have been shown to have validity.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
And, as we all know, /. summaries are always, always 100% accurate, unbiased, and a fair and thorough representation of the issue.
God help you actually RTFA.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I fail to see the problem with that, other than the fact you've erroneously thrown the word "panic" in there.
Following France and Germany, last year the Italian Agriculture Ministry suspended the use of a class of pesticides, nicotine-based neonicotinoids, as a "precautionary measure." The compelling results - restored bee populations - prompted the government to uphold the ban. Yesterday, copies of the film 'Nicotine Bees' were delivered to the US Congress explaining the pesticide's connection to Colony Collapse Disorder. Despite the evidence, why does CCD remain a 'mystery' in the US?
http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/nicotine-bees-population-restored-with-neonicotinoids-ban.html
It looks like there are still more studies needed if we really want to understand what is going on here.
The treated bees were about two to three times more likely to die while away from their nests, and the researchers said this was probably because the pesticide interfered with the bees' homing systems, so they couldn't find their way home.
That seems like quite the leap in logic, but I don't have the actual study in front of me. That pesticide harms bees sounds like a REALLY obvious conclusion, I kinda like bees and what they do for us.
We have a hypothesis so we want people to panic and give us funding
While I think it's unfair, I realize this has become the conventional meme for looking at all scientific results, but you should understand that colony collapse already has people panicking. If things continue to get worse, farmers that rely on bees are going to be wasting a lot of money soon.
Considering the importance of bees to agriculture, I think the potential of any link between pesticides and colony collapses warrants both extreme concern and funding.
Well, I don't think you read the article. There's a complicated situation here. It's not that the toxin is killing the bees directly but:
“So far, they mostly require manufacturers to ensure that doses encountered on the field do not kill bees, but they basically ignore the consequences of doses that do not kill them but may cause behavioral difficulties,”
So we have this situation where we believe a non-lethal dosage of this pesticide ruins the bee's ability to navigate back home which is a very serious problem. The real issue is that there's no way to quantify this and study it prior to releasing or approving a pesticide. So you have this situation where these folks are saying "we want to use technology to better our productivity in agriculture" and then you are levying unfathomable responsibility on the corporate giants who are developing said technologies. It's not as black and white as you make it out to be. I mean, how do you know that the pesticide doesn't make the bee a murderous backstabber in the colony years down the road?
I'm hesitant to comment on anything like this anymore, it got pretty ugly last time I asked follow up questions.
My work here is dung.
No problem, corn is wind pollinated so we'll still be able to live off of corn chips and high fructose corn syrup!
Several studies in the last year have indicated the same thing.
The evidence is stacking up pretty heavily at this point.
Nobody has panicked - these studies have been ongoing for the last couple years since the hypothesis was formed.
But, yes, there is some urgency in nailing it down before it starts affecting crop output.
> We have a hypothesis so we want people to panic and give us funding so we can actually see if there is a direct relationship
> between Colony Collapse Disorder
If you have been following the colony collapse story, you would already know that many entomologists suspect neonicotinoids as a possible part of the problem. Since pollination is a huge deal for agriculture, a lot of people really want to know the answer to CCD so it's not necessary to conjure up weird hypotheses to get funding. If you read any of the articles, you would also know that respected entomologists reviewing the papers thought they were well done.
Mmmmm soylent green.. Its whats for dinner.
Why do advertisers use sexy models? Because it works.
Why so scientists use FUD? Because it works.
You can't stop it anymore than you can stop teens from sneaking-out and from having sex. It's human nature to do what works to achieve the objective desired.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
I'm looking forward to the day when we use logic and reason instead of emotion and fear to get science funding and sway public opinion.
I am not sure if you are including this situation in your thinking. The logical move is to find alternative pesticides that do not harm the bees. Bees pollinate our crops in most areas of the world. We need them.
The food was modified by the owner (corporation) to produce the pesticide internally.
Wrong. It's a systemic insecticide, not related to GMO. You seem to be confusing this with BT.
Anyway, it's possible this is one of many factors involved in Colony Collapse. The scientists seemed careful to not repeat the "drinking 12 bottles of Hair Dye causes cancer in Canadian mice" study.
Both papers specifically study the effect of pesticides on bees. Colony collapse disorder is not even necessary to mention in the summary, not sure why he does.
Stop making shit up.
People who make shit like that up should be banned from the internet for a month.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Can people stop fucking using the word "drug" as the past tense of "drag"? It's "dragged".
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
The food was modified by the owner (corporation) to produce the pesticide internally.
False. These are water soluble pesticides that are included in the watering of plants and are easily translocated into the plant tissue as it grows. Alternatively they are applied to the soil or doused on seeds.
This is not the same as "roundup ready plants" which are GM plants that are resistant to roundup. You sound confused and appear to be bent on spreading fear about harm to humans who consume these plants.
My work here is dung.
Things won't change, not because of how big any company is, but because we can't just stop using pesticides unless you're comfortable with pretty much everyone you know dying of hunger.
Nothing in either article suggests a link to GMO food, and there has never been a case of a consumer suffering a harmful effect that was linked to pesticide residue on produce.
Unfortunately, the politicians who control funding and public opinion don't understand logic and reasoning.
I am not sure if you are including this situation in your thinking. The logical move is to find alternative pesticides that do not harm the bees. Bees pollinate our crops in most areas of the world. We need them.
The logical move is to actually do a study before announcing that the pesticide is destroying bee colonies. Once we decide to start looking for an alternative to something that isn't proven to be doing harm we take away resources that could be used to find the real problem if it turns out our initial assumption was wrong. While we are all busy looking for a bee friendly pesticide we could be ignoring a fungus or a mite, giving them time to do even more damage.
Before anything gets done about it, and I'm guessing it's nearly impossible to get that rubber stamp because someone will always cry "We Need more Proof!".
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
According to the most recent survey by Websters, the word "drug" is used by 30% of english speakers. It is common usage and you have no right to tell this minority how they are "allowed" to talk.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
They haven't announced that pesticides are destroying bee colonies, so your point is moot.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
WAIT! I thought colony collapse disorder was caused by cell phone radiation...the science was settled. Everyone agreed. How can this be? (bee?)
Scott
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
>>> there has never been a case of a consumer suffering a harmful effect
According to the FOX, CNN, and MicrosoftNBC who are funded and controlled by the corporations. Yeah we can trust them.
I did a bit of research (something you could have done yourself) and Neonicotinoid does indeed come already sprayed onto the seeds. In fact Monsanto is now advising farmers to plant about 80% GMO and 20% non-GMO, in order to provide a "safe harbor" for the bees to find some clean food that is not poisoned.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
I'm looking forward to the day when we use logic and reason instead of emotion and fear to get science funding and sway public opinion.
There are several Utopian cults who promise what you seek, it is delivered right after the Kool-Aid is served.
...that insecticide would have bad side effects on bees? What does one thing have to do with the other?
>>>People who make shit like that up should be banned from the internet for a month.
Read the first amendment.
Or the enumeration of rights in your State constitution.
Nobody's speech may be censored.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
The logical move would be to read and understand the research before making things up. The scientists have said these classes of pesticides might be the cause and more study is warranted. If they are right the next move is what to do which may include limiting the usage of these pesticides or their methods of dispersal.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Since the papers are behind a Science paywall, I can't tell: Do the papers actually mention a connection to Colony Collapse Disorder? All I see is the mainstream press articles making that extrapolation.
Have a source, or are you going to continue to make stuff up?
And before you tell me to do my own research, you brought it up, you defend it.
I dont even know if you're right, or wrong. But your claiming we cant trust all major news sites about a story that could impact every human on the face of the planet is a major red flag.
Not to mention Neonicotinoid being sprayed on seeds is not 'GMO'. Its standard pesticide. So...yeah, balls in your court champ.
Sadly, while soylent green is predominantly people, another key ingredient is honey.
Logic and reason say that bees are critical to agriculture and doing nothing about colony collapse, not investigating possible causes, could have dire consequences.
Is spelling out those possible consequences an appeal to emotion and fear? Maybe. If it wasn't needed then the plain and obvious logic would have already had the effect you desire.
The enemies of Democracy are
And why is that wrong? It's the only way to get any science funded these days. I suppose they could go the whole evangelical "God wants you to give me your social security check" route, but that has a few ethical issues.
The First Amendment protects your right to speak, but it certainly doesn't mean there can't be consequences. Go look up libel.
Nor does it require any private company to give you a platform to make shit up. I guess he should have stated it as "People who make this shit up should be banned by all of the companies that provide Internet services for a month".
So aka, don't publish findings to try to secure grants for further research until said research is already done. Makes sense.
I didn't see anything calling for a ban. Just a possible link. I haven't even seen anyone saying they should ban it. I personally think it should be used more sparingly than it was before since there is a potential link since bees are so important to agriculture and the Colony Collapse disorder is a real major concern. If research shows that there is no real connection I don't see anything wrong with continuing to use it and if research shows there is a link, we need to stop using it. If a drug has shown a possible link to cancer in the majority of patients it is prescribed to, how would you feel about your doctor prescribing it to you if he knew that ongoing research was being done on the potential safety of the drug? It wouldn't be banned but I would prefer my doctor prescribe an alternative medication.
You clearly don't even know what GMO means. Maybe you should start your "research" there. Hint: it involves Genetically Modified Organisms.
No, the logical move is to develop sustainable agriculture practices that don't need to rely on pesticides. By definition, any pesticide is poison, and will certainly affect something else down the line. Even if we find an alternative pesticide that does not harm the bees, it will harm something else.
The sudden and drastic drop in the bee population has been ongoing for a few years now, and to date, no one has had a solid explanation for it. That an important part of our own food chain is rapidly and inexplicably disappearing in large numbers should be cause for panic. These studies point the researchers in a new direction. That's actually good news, as it may be bringing us closer to the real cause.
I should mention that I am old enough to remember when idiots like you were dismissing the systemic impact of DDT with similar language, whe all the birds began disappearing.
I'm mostly in favour of evolutionary shifts in language. However, it doesn't mean we shouldn'y try to curb the more stupid mistakes. Sorry, but "drug" as the past tense of drag is just stupid. Like "irregardless". Or "bet" instead of "beaten". I fully reserve the right to tell people that they're wrong when they are, no matter how popular their wrongness is. You have the right to disagree. But your right to disagree does not negate my right to correct.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
But in my heart place I want to see everyone of those fuckers die in agony
Why so scientists use FUD? Because it works.
And it destroys scientific literacy in the process.
Does this apply to companies that make shit up? No shortage of those.
The logical move is to actually do a study before announcing that the pesticide is destroying bee colonies.
Agreed. And the logical move is to get funding in order to perform the study. Research like this usually means getting funding from the government (i.e. politicians). So, the logical move by the scientists was to point out and say, "hey someone found a possible relationship here, we should investigate this further." And that's exactly what happened.
I corrected s/site/cite the other day and the fellow actually thanked me. Most people don't care if they sound illiterate. I suspect that 30% of the people who post on the internet confuse your and you're. That doesn't make it right but it does make them sound like toothless Okies.
It's typical conservative projecting. They think everything is a scheme to make money because with them pretty much everything is a scheme to make money. They think science is about power because everything is about power.
Also, the tendency to embrace simple answers to complex problems completely precludes understanding statements that essentially mean "I don't totally understand this situation, but I have knowledge/experience/research that makes me believe it might have something to do with X. It should be studied further to find out if that's true or not."
To a conservative that's weak because conservatives KNOW what's right and wrong and any evidence to the contrary is just ivory tower liberal thinking. That's especially true when the possible or probable conclusion would result in having to change behaviors, particularly profitable behaviors.
I'm looking forward to the day when we use logic and reason instead of emotion and fear to get science funding and sway public opinion.
Well, here's hoping the public starts responding to logic and science more than fear and PR. Bees pollinate 90% of the worlds crops, and they're dying out quickly. We need to identify why they're failing and then protect them or else we're going to face big food shortages. I don't care how it gets sold to the public or even IF it gets sold to the public. It's fine with me if tax dollars are spent on this research without the public even realizing it, so long as that doesn't jeopardize it.
If that sounds elitist, sorry, but I really stopped valuing public opinion when public opinion said we should invade Iraq because Saddam had a bunch of WMD and was behind the 9/11 attacks.
Of course if you follow your logic. We would ban everything until we can prove it is safe.
I love it when "by that logic..." statements don't even try to follow the logic that was presented, but this one is even better because there was no logic regarding banning products provided at all!
The enemies of Democracy are
I've never ever heard that use of "drug".... who are the 30%?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Your overreaction is the exact root of the problem which you describe in others. The article makes it clear that scientists might have a cause to the bee problem and further study is required. You have taken it to cause panic (which has not happened) and bans (which were never suggested).
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
If all they want is money to study to see if there is a relationship between these pesticides and Colony Collapse Disorder, I do not have a problem with that. If, on the other hand, they want to ban the use of these pesticides on the basis of the study they have already done, I have a problem with that.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
My, that is a very nice man made of straw you have there!
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
If we lose bees, we do not lose all our crops overnight.
What happens instead is that the number of humans we have to devote to food production increases dramatically. Without bees or a decent substitute for bees, we would have to pollinate crops by hand, which is a very labor-intensive process. While this will not result in human extinction overnight, we are talking about a very drastic change in the kinds of civilizations we are capable of having. The less of your population you have to devote to food production, the more advanced your civilization can be.
If we had to suddenly devote a lot more human labor to food production, there would be profound effects for all of us for generations to come. We're talking about pretty scary stuff, but nowhere near as extreme as the complete loss of agriculture overnight.
This is very serious stuff, and I think we should err on the side of caution and ban these pesticides, but suggesting the instant loss of regular plant-based agriculture is a bit Henny Penny.
But the truly humorous things is that a large portion of the worlds crops are also fertilized by bees... So, perhaps in the end, either solution ends up in the same place.
Though I think we should hire little immigrant children to run around in bee costumes, with q-tips. Take that, bees!
(I kid... mostly)
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
RoundUp, last I checked, was an herbicide, not a pesticide.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Hey, fun fact, there are currently ~7 billion people alive today, largely due to industrial agriculture practices such as pesticides. Without them we could not produce nearly as much food as we do as cheaply as we do. So, keeping that in mind, what do you suggest we do in the interim while waiting for pesticide-free agriculture practices to develop?
I'm looking forward to the day when we use logic and reason instead of emotion and fear
This applies to everything, but it isn't likely to happen anytime soon.
I'd be glad if we used logic and reason for a lot of things, not just science:
* Education
* Health care
* Public policy
* Foreign policy
* The military
I could list so much that I would run out of space.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Hey, there, snarkopotamous. Did I say to stop all current agricultural practices RIGHT THE FUCK NOW so we can all step as one into the bright utopian future?
No, I did not.
It's this type of blatant refusal to address issues coherently and the related knee-jerk argumentativeness that keeps progress from being made.
Fun fact: a hell of a lot of those 7billion people who are alive today are very slowly and painfully starving because the system that IS in place doesn't adequately meet their needs anyway.
Also, cheap food is typically less nutritious, as well. What do I propose we do? Anything at all. But people like you try to reframe the discussion, so I suppose we'll just sit on our hands and do nothing, year after year. Which is what we are doing anyway.
Ho hum.
We'll also still have vanilla, onions, potatoes and paw paw which is pollinated by other insects.
The real funding is all going to go towards developing a super bee that is resistant to pesticides kind of like when they made africanized honey bees. Our kind of science prefers the costly solution with unknown results over the obvious one.
Not sure what that guy drank, but I think it warrants further investigation as some of the users on this site may also be drinking it... :-)
Depends, are you talking about Mitt Romney's definition of a company?
It should be banned now so industry can get right to work testing something even more harmful on their crops.
He's confusing the refuge areas of Bt corn. How it works is that, with the insect resistant Bt corn, you are supposed to leave an area of non-GE crop where the pests can breed. this way, any pests that are able to survive in the GE field (in other words, those with resistance to the trait) will be much more likely to mate with a non-resistant one from the refuge area, and since resistance is usually a recessive trait, their progeny will not be resistant. Otherwise you'd have resistant ones mating with resistant ones, which would quickly increase the number of resistant pests. These resistant pests are becoming a problem now because not enough refuge area is being planted and the GE crops, the ones with that type of Bt trait anyway, are being overused (something to consider when the anti-GE crowd claims that farmers neither like nor want GE crops). This has absolutely nothing to do with anything put on seeds (which are usually fungicides, not pesticides, IIRC) or with bees. The news thing is just par for the course in conspiracy world. So is confusing every concept and lumping them together when convenient. 'Do your own research' typically means Google it and go to the blog with the most inflammatory rhetoric, because (as everyone knows) the primary scientific literature on the subject is, like the news sources, part of the conspiracy.
I mentioned colony collapse both due to various mainstream news articles mentioning it, and because when looking to find links to the papers the first thing I came across was another article from the same issue, mentioning colony collapse and talking about these papers. I do not have access to Science so I cannot see the full text, but I assumed the newspapers were drawing from this guy's report. The summary provided does not explicitly connect these studies to CCD, so it would be helpful if someone with access could let us know if the newspapers were overdoing the CCD angle.
That said, if these pesticides are widely used, and they do cause navigation problems for bees, it would make sense that they would be at least aggrevating the CCD problem, if not a root cause.
My webcomic
Ahh, well, that changes everything.
That's a high enough bar to still call it a "study"? That may not be the case.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
See, I'm actually more forgiving of misplaced apostrophes, because I understand it's not always an "intentional" mistake but a reflexive one. The mind doesn't think "oh, a possessive!", it thinks "oh, an s at the end!".
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
So Monsanto-provided labels are God?
Not being a pesticide has nothing to do with being good or bad for you. It just isn't a pesticide.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
. . . which means that even if you stop using the pesticides, the trees are going to get you. And if you are going to go after the trees out of self-defense, that also puts the bees in a tight spot which, then, could spiral out of control and lead to a . . . script for an M Night Shyamlan sequel. Either way we're screwed.
Monsanto bees!
More likely we'll get a panic and a grossly inappropriate reaction. Tar and feather some chemists!
Huh? Herbicide is a subset of pesticide. It kills pesty weeds, with a weed being a plant growing where it is unwanted.
And for safety, glyphosate is usually considered safe though there are reports of a couple of 100 ml causing death. The real danger is in the surfactants used to help the glyphosate penetrate the waxy cell covering. These aren't covered by the FDA as they aren't an active ingredient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Effects
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_(herbicide)#Toxicity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
RoundUp, last I checked, was an herbicide, not a pesticide.
Actually herbicides are a class of pesticides formulated to kill weeds. Pesticides are a broad category of "economic poisons" which kill pests. Other kinds of pesticides include:
insecticides (insects)
fungicides (fungus, typically plant diseases)
nematicides (nematodes)
rodenticides (rodents)
You are going to leave blow all the plants in the world?
This may be true, but the extent to which we are responsible and can do something about it is pretty much the extent to which we kill bees with pesticides, along with the overworking and transport of colonies.
Korma: Good