POLL: EPA Restricts Use of Pesticides Suspected of Killing Bees

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The EPA has issued a moratorium on use of a type of pesticide theorized to be responsible for plummeting bee populations. Neonicotinoids are a class of common pesticides that recent research has pointed to as being harmful to birds, bees and other animals. The EPA previously approved their use, but outcry over the damage being done has caused the agency to reverse course while more studies are done. On Thursday, the EPA sent letters to people and companies that have applied for outdoor use of the pesticide, saying that new use permits won't be issued.

New uses of neonicotinoids will no long be approved "until the data on pollinator health have been received and appropriate risk assessments completed," the EPA letter reads. Existing permits to use them, however, will not be rescinded - something wildlife and environmental advocacy groups are unhappy with.

NBC

 

[fsu1jreed]

If further testing does indeed show it was the neonicotinoids then they can rescind the approval then, that's how science works.

 

[h-hawk]

We have some sort of vine along the back of the house that starts growing quickly mid summer. I leave it up because it attracts lots of honey and bumble bees. Before it started growing several years ago, I could go most of a summer without seeing a honey bee here in West Des Moines. Contrast this with the multitude of bees we would see on the dandelions and other flowering plants when I grew up in the 60's. (Why couldn't it be the worthless wasps dying off...)

 

[SiouxCyty]

Check out some articles by Jonathon Lundgren, Entomologist for USDA in Brookings. I've heard him talk many times. Makes a lot of sense. It's hard to prove that neonics are the primary reason for colony collapse but to think they aren't a contributor is burying one's head in the sand. He's not against the use of chemicals, but thinks they should be limited and not used as preventive when there is no evidence.

There are very few insects left in Iowa corn fields. Baby pheasants feed on them, or used to. Monsanto and Bayer have lots of $$$$

Bees are amazing creatures. They find their way back to the hive from several miles away. I've seen bees traced that have come in contact with neonics. Path looks like a drunk leaving a bar at 2 a.m. trying to find his car. Neonics affect the nervous system. With colony collapse you don't find dead bees around the hive like you do when death is caused by parasitic mites. They simply don't return.

.
This post was edited on 4/3 3:58 PM by SiouxCyty

Jonathon Lundgren

 

[fsu1jreed]

Originally posted by SiouxCyty:

Check out some articles by Jonathon Lundgren, Entomologist for USDA in Brookings. I've heard him talk many times. Makes a lot of sense. It's hard to prove that neonics are the primary reason for colony collapse but to think they aren't a contributor is burying one's head in the sand. He's not against the use of chemicals, but thinks they should be limited and not used as preventive when there is no evidence.

That should be sound advice in the application of any pesticide/insecticide.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Originally posted by fsu1jreed:
If further testing does indeed show it was the neonicotinoids then they can rescind the approval then, that's how science works.

Isn't the damage already so great, and the data sufficiently suggestive that we should be strongly erring on the side of caution? If this were a criminal case, we would be well past the "probably cause" level of evidence, wouldn't we? We might even be to the prima facie stage. We don't ordinarily let people roam free and continue to do the same stuff at those stages.

 

[fsu1jreed]

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:

Originally posted by fsu1jreed:
If further testing does indeed show it was the neonicotinoids then they can rescind the approval then, that's how science works.

Isn't the damage already so great, and the data sufficiently suggestive that we should be strongly erring on the side of caution? If this were a criminal case, we would be well past the "probably cause" level of evidence, wouldn't we? We might even be to the prima facie stage. We don't ordinarily let people roam free and continue to do the same stuff at those stages.

It was just a few years ago that I watched a PBS show discussing a "possible" connection, now maybe PBS was way behind the times, but usually there at the forefront of things so I would figure let's spend some real money to not only valid everything, but find the actual chink in the armor.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Originally posted by fsu1jreed:

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:

Originally posted by fsu1jreed:
If further testing does indeed show it was the neonicotinoids then they can rescind the approval then, that's how science works.

Isn't the damage already so great, and the data sufficiently suggestive that we should be strongly erring on the side of caution? If this were a criminal case, we would be well past the "probably cause" level of evidence, wouldn't we? We might even be to the prima facie stage. We don't ordinarily let people roam free and continue to do the same stuff at those stages.

It was just a few years ago that I watched a PBS show discussing a "possible" connection, now maybe PBS was way behind the times, but usually there at the forefront of things so I would figure let's spend some real money to not only valid everything, but find the actual chink in the armor.

I don't think we are disagreeing here. We should be as aggressive as the data support. But this is important enough that we shouldn't be timid. If being wrong but strong means some farmers and others are hurt and must be reimbursed or helped from public funds, that's one downside. But if being right but timid means nearly or completely wiping out most bees, that strikes me as an even worse downside.

I'm not an expert on this, but from what I've heard, I'd support strong bans and aid to affected farmers, rather than weak bans and crossed fingers.