Slashdot Mirror


Pesticides Turn Bumblebees Into Poor Pollinators (acs.org)

MTorrice writes about a new study that suggests neonicotinoids, one of the most widely used insecticides in the world, turn bumblebees into poor pollinators, leading to lower yields of apples and other plants. Chemical & Engineering News reports: "Neonicotinoid pesticides have been blamed for declines in bee populations worldwide. The chemicals don't kill bees, instead neonicotinoids impair the insects' abilities to learn, navigate, forage for nectar, and reproduce, according to studies published over the past several years. Now, researchers report that bees exposed to the pesticides also become less effective pollinators for crops. The study is the first to demonstrate that neonicotinoids can decrease the quality of a food crop by affecting bee pollination. About 30% of our food comes from crops, including fruits, nuts, seeds, and oils, that depend on insect pollinators, according to Dara A. Stanley of Royal Holloway, University of London, who led the new study. 'Basically,' she says, 'you can't have a balanced diet without insect pollination.'"

93 comments

  1. Translation : by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Insects are affected by poison.

    I think we have a Nobel candidate here.

    1. Re:Translation : by ClickOnThis · · Score: 3, Informative

      From TFA:

      “Until now, all of the focus has been on the impact of neonicotinoids on bees themselves,” she continues. “But obviously the reason why we’re interested in bees is because they provide pollination services.”

      Rough translation, this study examines how neonicotinoids affect bee behaviour, and not just whether they kill or injure them.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    2. Re:Translation : by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

      It seems reasonable enough to me that bees that quit pollinating multiple times a day to take a smoke break would be less efficient than normal, upstanding, hard working, bees.

    3. Re:Translation : by reub2000 · · Score: 1

      More specifically, a substance meant to poison insects, poisons insects.

    4. Re:Translation : by mikael · · Score: 1

      It was known in farming lore back in the 1990's. The Times country section had a comment by a farmer about how bees would become slow, dozy and crash into things just when bright yellow fields of crops were being sprayed with pesticide that gave a thick oily smell to the air.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    5. Re:Translation : by pi_rules · · Score: 1

      Nobody has ever thought you could spray any insecticide, with ONE exception perhaps*, and not affect bees. While neonics are supposed to be less hazardous to bees than most everything else if you spray bees with it they'll drop dead instantly. They're not the most effective, but they'll kill 'em right quick. It says so right on the labels. Dinotefuran, imidicloprid, acetamprid, etc... they're all going to say do not use when bees are or will be present.

      *: Bt would be the exception.

    6. Re:Translation : by plover · · Score: 1

      Actually, they've known for several years that minute quantities of neonicotinoids cause bees to 'dance' incorrectly; where the dance no longer correctly directs other bees to their discovery of nectar. The loss of food may be partly responsible for Colony Collapse Disorder. It's not surprising that this would also lead to reduced pollination.

      --
      John
    7. Re:Translation : by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Yes. In Psychology, given the extreme stupidity of those that deny this effect.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    8. Re: Translation : by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not poison, it's a carefully crafted agricultural treatment which causes no harm at all. Carry on spraying. Then you can go and give the pigs their antibiotics.

    9. Re:Translation : by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Who the hell would be denying that spraying bees with poison is going to have a negative impact? I don't think that I've heard anyone say that, not even stupid people online. Well, not seriously at any rate. I've probably seen someone say it sarcastically but I don't think anyone has ever made an actual attempted argument for such that I have seen. (Not to say it didn't happen but that I've never seen it.)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  2. Bees having their integrated face system damaged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Neonicotinoid pesticides damage bees integrated face systems causing problems with pollination.

  3. OK, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not just create robot drones that can do what the bees used to do? Problem solved.

    *smug*

    1. Re:OK, so... by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      Especially if the robot drones are 3-D printed!!

    2. Re:OK, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But only if they're made from privately mined asteroid minerals! With fully automated electric drive and catapulted stuff!

    3. Re:OK, so... by Buchenskjoll · · Score: 1

      I - for one - salute our new asteroid-mined, 3d-printed robot drone bee overlords.

      --
      -- Make America hate again!
  4. Awww by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Poor bees, so why isnt there something done to ban that type of pesticide?

    1. Re:Awww by Mikkeles · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because people want all food, cheap, unblemished in any way, all year round, no matter how tasteless or lacking in nutrition.

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    2. Re:Awww by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want my toxins pure, thank you very much!

      Captcha: looser

    3. Re:Awww by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Captcha: looser

      Is this a reference to your bowels?

    4. Re:Awww by felixrising · · Score: 1

      Yeah, its just amazing how tasteless so much fruit is from "fresh food" super markets here in Australia (not sure if it's the same in the USA but I'm guessing yes)... The fruit *looks* great, but it tastes unripened/bitter or just not much flavonoids at all. :/

    5. Re:Awww by plover · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because neonicotinoids are among the safest overall pesticides that have ever been developed. They very effectively target insects, but have very minor effects on mammals. The LD50 of Safari is over 2000 mg/kg of body weight in rats. They're rated category III by the EPA, which means 'slightly toxic and/or slightly irritating.'

      The big problem is with bees. Neonics are supposedly 150X more lethal to bees than to any other insect genera.

      The EU has already banned neonics (possibly because population density is higher and bees may be more shared than in the US); the US is dragging their feet.

      --
      John
    6. Re:Awww by delt0r · · Score: 1

      You got a citation for the lacking of nutrition part? You won't find one. Because every study ever done has shown no real difference (well not quite true, one or two have shown organic to be *worse* because of the presence of fungus) between modern farming, and organic or whatever flavour of the week it is for "better nutrition". Proper blind studies have shown people can't tell the difference in taste either. Again not quite true. Some have shown people believe the "freshest and tastiest" is the modern farmed stuff.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    7. Re:Awww by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong discussion. The GMO debate is in the next room.

    8. Re:Awww by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The EU has already banned neonics (possibly because population density is higher and bees may be more shared than in the US); the US is dragging their feet.

      Or more likely the main neonics producers are not based in the EU, so haven't got the same lobbying power, or it benefits some EU pesticide producer to have these banned or similar.

    9. Re:Awww by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      Are you volunteering not to have food year round?

    10. Re:Awww by rochrist · · Score: 1

      If you can't tell the difference in flavor between commercial strawberries or blueberries and fresh wild ones, then you're likely dead. Probably for more than 10 years.

    11. Re:Awww by delt0r · · Score: 1

      I love the heavy dose of scientific evidence in this post.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    12. Re:Awww by rochrist · · Score: 1

      Some things don't require it. Serious. Do you require scientific evidence that if you let go of a rock suspended over your foot you're going to get hurt? If it makes you happier, I'd love to conduct a blind taste test, which I will get right EVERY SINGLE TIME. because you'd have to have literally lost ALL sense of taste to fail.

  5. Keep smoking, folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's good for the bees can't be bad for humans, can it?

    1. Re:Keep smoking, folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, a bee can't drink a shot glass full of water in less than a second, but humans can, with no ill effects, so your argument doesn't really have much merit no matter how you want to look at it.

    2. Re:Keep smoking, folks by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Informative

      Smoke isn't "good" for bees. It just triggers behaviours that make them docile.

      The smoke masks the scent produced by guard-bees, so a bee-keeper's intrusion produces less alarm. Also, the smoke tricks the bees into thinking the hive is on fire, so they gorge on the honey, and become distended and less able to sting.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    3. Re:Keep smoking, folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Maybe you didn't pick up on the connection: neonicotinoids. But yes, "smoke" isn't good for the bees. The neonicotinoids impair their "abilities to learn, navigate, forage for nectar, and reproduce."

    4. Re:Keep smoking, folks by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Maybe you didn't pick up on the connection: neonicotinoids.

      LOL. Yes, I did miss that. Thanks.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    5. Re:Keep smoking, folks by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Given that most humans today are already terminally stupid, I doubt we would see much effect. Then maybe, this is the effect...

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    6. Re:Keep smoking, folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet they can drink an equivalent volume of water relative to their body mass though.

  6. Poison is bad for living things by Bob_Who · · Score: 0

    If it doesn't kill you, that doesn't mean its good to use in small amounts. Never trust perverse market incentives to pay for honest scientific research.

    1. Re:Poison is bad for living things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Are you really as stupid (and boring) as you sound, or is this just a poor poe attempt?

    2. Re:Poison is bad for living things by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Some poisons are subtler than others; but ones that target the nervous system are good candidates for 'effects will be a pain in the ass to tease out; but probably start to show up at doses well below lethal'.

    3. Re:Poison is bad for living things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it doesn't kill you, that doesn't mean its good to use in small amounts

      But that is provably wrong.

      The whole immune system would want a word with you.
      Not only that, the vaccine industry who actually infect you on purpose with some help from other stuff to help your body fight that off by triggering production of antibodies more effectively than you normally would alone.

      Not to mention the fact that bodies are capable of even defending themselves against future venoms from snake bites and similar by deliberate exposure on yourself in controlled doses. There has been many people who have done this to themselves to further research. One guy even donated his blood to help people after having injected himself with venoms countless times over his life.

      Our body works with infection to keep it alive.
      Without small, constant infections in the body, you would literally kill yourself through severe and agonising autoimmune reactions all over.
       

    4. Re:Poison is bad for living things by JonStewartMill · · Score: 1

      No idea if this is germane to the discussion, but I'm reminded of the guy who cured himself of a lifelong autoimmune disease by intentionally giving himself a hookworm infestation. It was on "This American Life", if memory serves.

  7. Spare us the hype by Kohath · · Score: 0

    If the pesticides are a problem, let's address it. There's no need to pretend we're in for a future "without insect pollination". If this phenomenon is a real problem that can be demonstrated, then why hype it up? Why exaggerate?

    Farmers know how to grow food. If some problem threatens their ability to grow food, they'll find a solution to the problem.

    1. Re:Spare us the hype by ClickOnThis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      With all due respect to farmers, they'll probably need some help with this. They know how to grow food, but not necessarily how to create better pesticides.

      And what's with the claim of hype or exaggeration? The full context of what you quoted, in TFS and TFA, is:

      About 30% of our food comes from crops, including fruits, nuts, seeds, and oils, that depend on insect pollinators, according to Dara A. Stanley of Royal Holloway, University of London, who led the new study. 'Basically,' she says, 'you can't have a balanced diet without insect pollination.'"

      I see no hype or exaggeration here. Just rational and accurate communication.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    2. Re:Spare us the hype by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the pesticides are a problem, let's address it. There's no need to pretend we're in for a future "without insect pollination". If this phenomenon is a real problem that can be demonstrated, then why hype it up? .

      Because I'm certain that we can find some scientist, probably paid by the industry making Neonicotinoid pesticides, who will deny a problem, and a whole lot of people will hop on that bandwagon, just like global warming deniers, vaccine deniers, evolution deniers, moon landing deniers, tobacco and lung cancer deniers, and all the other happy little deniers out there. In 21st century America, Opinion trumps science every time.

      Teach the controversy!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:Spare us the hype by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      About 30% of our food comes from crops, including fruits, nuts, seeds, and oils, that depend on insect pollinators, according to Dara A. Stanley of Royal Holloway, University of London, who led the new study. 'Basically,' she says, 'you can't have a balanced diet without insect pollination.'"

      I see no hype or exaggeration here. Just rational and accurate communication.

      Truth can be hype to some folks.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re:Spare us the hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I expect the truth to agree with my preconceptions. Thanks in advance.

      Captcha: glowing

    5. Re:Spare us the hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I see no hype or exaggeration here. Just rational and accurate communication."

      Truth can be hype to some folks.

      Yeah, but those folks are fucking morons whose opinion we need stop coddling as being perfectly valid when it's just idiotic bullshit.

    6. Re:Spare us the hype by Kohath · · Score: 1

      The implication is that we may someday be "without insect pollinators". We won't. It's hype - hyperbole - an exaggeration for effect -- to imply a future condition "without insect pollinators". Perhaps that's not what the scientist intended, but now the words have been quoted and re-quoted in a different context.

      People who grow "fruits, nuts, seeds, and oils" know what they are doing. If they need insect pollinators, they'll make sure they have insect pollinators in the right quantity, with the right pollinating ability, to make their crop a success.

    7. Re:Spare us the hype by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      I fully expect the truth to agree with the preconceived notions of the people who funded the study and/or employed the best expert witness(es).

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    8. Re: Spare us the hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if all the colonies collapse?

    9. Re:Spare us the hype by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      If they need insect pollinators, they'll make sure they have insect pollinators in the right quantity, with the right pollinating ability, to make their crop a success.

      I never knew that nut farmers had such godlike powers.

      I wonder why they're not using those powers right now to bring the perfect amount of rain to California, though.

    10. Re:Spare us the hype by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
      Here is what our future probably holds:

      China's apple growers are hand pollinating apples

      https://www.chinadialogue.net/...

      Pears: http://thebeephotographer.phot...

      Great Britians bee loss

      http://www.collective-evolutio...

      And on and on, and on.

      I keep writing about it, but seriously, Humans cannot defy nature or physics just because we feel like it. Bee death denials

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    11. Re:Spare us the hype by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Bees is a small subset of insect pollinators.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    12. Re:Spare us the hype by delt0r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or you could you know look at the data. There is a lot more than just this study about this. Fact is the data is not nearly as clear cut as the summary claims. What is clear is how crops handle not using pesticide, they don't. You know organic crops use pesticide right? You think you can just ask all the insects to be nice to your crop just because you decided it organic?

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    13. Re:Spare us the hype by dywolf · · Score: 1

      because people like you deny there is a problem until its too late and just assume that 'the farmers' will fix it before its too late, when most 'farmers' are big corporations who care more about next quarter profit statements than the long term production of crops.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    14. Re:Spare us the hype by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Or you could you know look at the data. There is a lot more than just this study about this. Fact is the data is not nearly as clear cut as the summary claims. What is clear is how crops handle not using pesticide, they don't. You know organic crops use pesticide right? You think you can just ask all the insects to be nice to your crop just because you decided it organic?

      So you are saying that an ihnsecticide won't harm bees? Or do we just give up and do like China is doing now, and have peopel pollinate crops?

      And, you actually wrote"

      What is clear is how crops handle not using pesticide, they don't. /p>

      SRSLY? Are you just trying to lull me into complacency, laughing, by posting the stupidest comment on the web ever?

      So plants did not exist until we invented insecticide?

      Not much point in arguing with someone who would post that.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    15. Re:Spare us the hype by Kohath · · Score: 1

      I never knew that nut farmers had such godlike powers.

      It's called a telephone. You call up the bee supplier. He arrives with bees. Hives are setup near your crops. Bees pollinate. Later, the bee supplier picks up the hives and invoices you for the bee rental.

      I wonder why they're not using those powers right now to bring the perfect amount of rain to California, though.

      This is called irrigation.

      You must think farmers just have big plots of land and food crops just randomly happen to grow there.

    16. Re:Spare us the hype by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Your funny. Also you didn't look at the data did you.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    17. Re:Spare us the hype by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      You call up the bee supplier. He arrives with bees.

      That works great.

      Unless he doesn't have any god-damned bees any more. Have you been living under a rock for the past five years?

    18. Re:Spare us the hype by Kohath · · Score: 1

      The bee supplier knows how bees make more bees. When he wants more bees, he raises more bees.

      None of this is random chance.

    19. Re:Spare us the hype by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      Are you trying to be obtuse?

      How does the bee supplier raise more bees if they have all been poisoned?

    20. Re:Spare us the hype by Kohath · · Score: 1

      He makes a phone call to another bee supplier and gets bees. Bees reproduce more bees. With time and care, his hives end up full of bees.

    21. Re:Spare us the hype by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      I give up. You're as dense as a brick.

    22. Re:Spare us the hype by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Nope. That's actually what would happen.

      Farmers know what they are doing.

  8. Damn it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We don't need more poors, can't we get the bees to stop pollinating them?

  9. It's the farmers ... by slimdave · · Score: 1

    ... I feel sorry for. They'll need plenty of financial compensation for this fuckup.

    1. Re:It's the farmers ... by pi_rules · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Neonics have been in popular use since the 90's and increasing every year. If the use of them was hurting yield (it isn't) farmers would have noticed by now. They're using them because it increases yield in a cost effective manner and it's not a simple story.

      Neonics are useful because they're deliverable in powder form, you can coat a seed with it, and it'll protect the seed from insects while germinating. After that the plant will take up the chemical to provide some systemic activity for a period of time. This helps the young plants get established. After about 30 days they're gone and not doing anything.

      They started being used in the 90's for field farming because you could seed at a lower rate, but seed is, generally, very cheap so it wasn't too common. Pumpkins? Sure. Corn? No way -- too cheap of seed. When GMO corn, soy, cotton, etc came along THEN you saw a big uptick in neonics as it was now beneficial to protect those seeds as the GMO crops were fairly expensive seed.

      Apiaries (bee keepers) might be taking a bit of hit but that's just part of dropping your bees off at a farm where a simple mistake can kill most of them. One entymologist I've heard speak on this pointed out a farm that killed a bunch of rented bees with vegetable oil... and yes vegetable oil is an insecticide. Another killed a bunch with RoundUp, an herbicide, but too much will kill a bee. Pretty much anything will kill a bee. The fact that neonics aren't terribly fatal to them is amazing, and public resistance to them confounds me and generally every other guy that's donned a chem suit and went to town on bugs. The alternatives are generally horrible to bees. Push back on neonics is going to result in more pyrethroids, carbamates and organophosphates. Every single one is toxic to bees, horribly so, and carbamates and organophosphates are bad news for humans.

    2. Re:It's the farmers ... by slimdave · · Score: 1

      Mosanto should get in the business of GM bees?

    3. Re:It's the farmers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Just forbid the use of neonics. Someone will cook up something new. The best thing would be to not everyone use the same type of poison, just in case it has serious side effects, so we don't lose everything at once.

  10. Newsflash by thisisauniqueid · · Score: 2, Funny

    Newsflash: chemicals used because of they harm insects end up harming insects.

  11. Re: This is part of the Republican's plan.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    This. They want to starve children.

  12. Irony by wbr1 · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is coming from the country that lifted a ban on neonictonoids... http://www.theguardian.com/env...

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      after hundreds of years of inbreeding the brits aren't the brightest bulbs anymore.

  13. Fabulous. by RafaelChuquiruna · · Score: 2

    Practical and direct, just great analysis.! https://www.facebook.com/julio...

  14. I eat maggots by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1
    I eat apples with maggots in them -- all the time.

    The apple maggot fly (AMF) lays eggs and little tiny larvae burrow through it leaving brown tracks. I have no problem eating those apples, but most of those apples fall off the tree before I get to them, and the remaining apples rot after a short time in storage.

    Acetamiprid has allowed me to have a halfway decent apple harvest from a home orchard for two years now. It doesn't seem to kill the adult flies so the fruit is still blemished, but it appears to kill the larvae as there are many fewer brown tracks and the apples keep in my cool basement until mid winter.

    The alternatives are organophosphates, which are nerve gas precursors or pyrethroids, which are much more bee toxic.

    But the categorical dismissal of the use of pesticides in growing fruit along with the high moderation points -- have people around here ever tried to plant an apple tree and get usable amounts of fruit from it?

    1. Re: I eat maggots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In general, the healthier a plant, the better it is at fighting off attacks. Pesticides should be a second line of defence.

    2. Re:I eat maggots by KGIII · · Score: 1

      There were a couple of dozen fruit trees in what used to be a clearing on my property. A neighbor advised me to consult an arbor-something-or-other tree specialist instead of just leaving them there. I hired him and he came in, cleared the overgrowth, and then trimmed the trees. I get *some* fruit now (pears and apples) but not a whole lot but they're a full order of magnitude larger than what they were when I first build the house and discovered the old orchard.

      The historical society, down in the village, doesn't have a whole lot of information but coring one of the trees indicates that the tree is a couple of hundred years old. I've not yet reached the point where we've done *any* pollination or fertilization. Simply cutting the growth back and then trimming the trees properly has been enough. In a few years, I'll be getting normal sized fruit from the trees.

      I'll have time, and motivation (hopefully) to harvest the majority while the fruit is still on the tree. I'll make jams, jellies, and can much the rest (there appears to be four different types of apples - we're not sure what one of them is just yet). I'll probably get some pressed and make cider. From that cider, I'll allow some to harden for friends and family.

      Point being... If you harvest in a timely manner AND get them pruned professionally (or learn to do it yourself - I guess there's quite a bit that goes into it) then you may not need to rely on any pesticide at all. I've eaten some of the fruit, some of it is still bitter and the sizes are still quite small. I'll probably save the "drops" for the deer. I can't, legally, bait a deer but I sure as hell don't have to pick up the apples and I am certainly eligible to hunt there. (Nature is allowed to bait on my behalf.)

      It wasn't too expensive to have him come in and look at it. Depending on how many trees you have, you may not spend much at all and they don't need to be pruned often. I've gone out and watched him do it a few times (it takes more work if the orchard goes sour like mine had) and could probably pull it off in a fashion, if needed, on my own. If you're willing to harvest on time and able to keep them properly pruned, you might be good to go without the need for any additional pesticides and fertilizer. The animals attracted by the fruit will probably take care of the pests for you.

      This may, of course, vary greatly depending on your location. If they don't drop then I don't have any reasons to expect pest trouble. Even then, so long as I get them in a timely fashion after they've dropped, I'll still have little problems (or so I'm told).

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  15. 100 percent by excelsior_gr · · Score: 2

    Correction: 100 % of our food comes from crops. What do you think that steak was eating before landing on your plate? Also, inefficient as hell, but steak does taste nice.

    1. Re:100 percent by M8e · · Score: 1

      Read the whole sentence.

    2. Re:100 percent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with your sentiment, but not all plants solely reproduce via pollination. Grass, for example, being one of those.

    3. Re:100 percent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Potatoes would be another.

      Don't get me wrong, I don't want to live in a world without bees.

  16. Sounds logical by holophrastic · · Score: 1

    Pesticides harm pests. Bees are pests. Pesticides harm bees. And we're done.

  17. Doing Monsanto Proud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...neonicotinoids, one of the most widely used insecticides in the world, turn bumblebees into poor pollinators, leading to lower yields of apples and other plants."

    Perfect for Monsanto!

  18. Id take a few bugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    over humanity not being able to eat

    Holy fuck you deserve a punch to your cunt

  19. Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was on /. Like 5 months ago. Let's talk about how the Spice Girls never wore a bra in their movie "Spice World".