Slashdot Mirror
Large-Scale Study 'Shows Neonic Pesticides Harm Bees' (bbc.com)
Long-time Slashdot reader walterbyrd shared an article from the BBC:
The most extensive study to date on neonicotinoid pesticides concludes that they harm both honeybees and wild bees. Researchers said that exposure to the chemicals left honeybee hives less likely to survive over winter, while bumblebees and solitary bees produced fewer queens. The study spanned 2,000 hectares across the UK, Germany and Hungary and was set up to establish the "real-world" impacts of the pesticides... A growing number of studies have found evidence of a link between neonicotinoids and problems for bees... Data from this study has now been submitted to the European Food Standards Agency. EFSA's report on neonicotinoids in 2013 sparked Europe's temporary ban, and it is now preparing another comprehensive assessment to be released in November.
The BBC adds that "Bayer, a major producer of neonicotinoids which part-funded this study, said the findings were inconclusive and that it remained convinced the pesticides were not bad for bees."
The BBC adds that "Bayer, a major producer of neonicotinoids which part-funded this study, said the findings were inconclusive and that it remained convinced the pesticides were not bad for bees."
"The BBC adds that "Bayer, a major producer of neonicotinoids which part-funded this study, said the findings were inconclusive and that it remained convinced the pesticides were not bad for bees."
Then, why did 100% of my bees die within 24 hours after my upwind neighbor sprayed her farm with neonicotinoid pesticides?
to make science work with public opinion? Scientists will never say "This is a fact". That's been exploited for as long as I can remember by shysters who say "Well, the scientists say they're not sure" when nothing could be further from the truth. It's a verbiage problem. But not one I see the scientists changing on since well, it's part of science that evidence changes you're belief...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
That's right. We should totally trust the companies that made the fucking pesticides that have killed the bees to make pest-resistant crops that won't kill the bees.
Makes perfect sense.
You are welcome on my lawn.
More specific counterpoint:
Persistence in soils, waterways, and nontarget plants is variable but can be prolonged; for example, the half-lives of neonicotinoids in soils can exceed 1,000 days, so they can accumulate when used repeatedly. Similarly, they can persist in woody plants for periods exceeding 1 year. Breakdown results in toxic metabolites, though concentrations of these in the environment are rarely measured.
Source
In sum, of 258 endpoints, 238—92 percent—showed no effects. (Four endpoints didn’t yield data.) Only 16 showed effects. Negative effects showed up 9 times—3.5 percent of all outcomes; 7 showed a benefit from using neonics—2.7 percent.
As one scientist pointed out, in statistics there is a widely accepted standard that random results are generated about 5 percent of the time—which means by chance alone we would expect 13 results meaninglessly showing up positive or negative.
You might as well publish a story that said. "Scientists prove that a casino die rolled 16 times came up a 4, 5, or 6, nine whole times. So dice are clearly all weighted to roll high. This is patently stupid.
Maybe neonicotinoids do kill bees, but this study sure doesn't show it. And whatever the effect is, it's pretty small.
Given how useful honeybees are to agriculture, there could be significant lobbying efforts to get rid of it. I'd expect California to ban them given their willingness to regulate responsibly, and the facts that almost all the almonds of the world are grown there and bees are required for it. Maryland has already banned them evidently.
That's not honey. It's High Fructose Corn Syrup.
No, but I do think that a pharmaceutical company would gladly throw a baby off a bridge if it meant a $0.50 bump in its stock price.
I start from a position of distrust when it comes to pharmaceutical companies and multi-national chemical conglomerates looking to establish intellectual property protections over basic foodstuffs. They want trust? Well then start by labeling your products. Because like you say, blind trust is bad.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'm not singling out anything. I'm saying any food product sold to consumers, from corn flakes to fresh produce, needs to have a symbol on its label saying it's from GE, the name of the company that holds the patent, and the fact that the GE is protected by a patent.
And my objection to GE does not start with whether or not it's safe, so let's spare everyone that argument.
On the plus side, if as you say these GE foods are a miracle that will save humanity from hunger and malnutrition, then these labels will pure marketing and consumers will flock to buy them. So it's win-win for both of us, right?
You are welcome on my lawn.
No, they aren't. I mean, they can be (although in some cases, chemical conglomerates will actually sue companies to PREVENT them from labeling non-GE products as non-GE), but they are not by default.
The companies that produce GE foods want to convince the world that their products are superior, will cost less and be of great benefit to humanity. They already put labels on them. I just want three things added to those labels: 1) that the product is, or is made from GE, 2) if the company is declaring intellectual property protections on the item, and 3)which company is the holder of the patents.
Simple, right? They can shrink the picture of Tony the Tiger or whichever anthropomorphic cartoon animal they are using to sell the shit to kids just a tiny bit to make room for the new information. Or, shrink the words, "An important part of this complete breakfast" or "New and Improved!"
You are welcome on my lawn.
And this is where this discussion always turns Orwellian: "We can't tell people that their food is a GE crop, because they might not like it."
A label with a true fact is not deception, friend. If your product can only succeed only as long as consumers don't know where it comes from, then your problem is marketing and not labeling. If the GE corporations spent a fraction of the money they spend fighting labeling laws by marketing their items to consumers then there wouldn't be a problem.
It amazes me that people who would otherwise be free-market absolutists will suddenly decide that when it comes to food, there is some information that consumers just shouldn't have. For their own good.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Corporations should have to prove their product is safe when introducing such dangerous products. If there is a risk, they should have wait until cleared. To allow them to continue until they are proven harmful is patently stupid.
If you disagree, then you should be a guinea pig for every new chemical and not be allowed to stop until it has been proven with "scientific consensus" that your problem is actually what you claim it is.
There is no such thing as a GE free organism. Every organism has been bred and altered to meet commercial production requirements. Even "organic" and "GE free" organisms have had centuries of selective breeding (and prior to that, natural selection) so that nothing is free of genetic manipulation. That's just nature.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?