Hacker News Reader

Comment by JanSolo | Hacker News Reader

Why is there no rush to phase out the use of these chemicals? My understanding is that they are a relatively recent invention and that we used different, less toxic, pesticides before. It should be a simple task to outlaw the neonicotinoids and return to the old pesticides. Sure, yields might drop a little, but that's better than an existential threat to our whole food chain, no?

View on HN

The whole point of neonicotinoids is that they're less toxic to mammals than organophosphates, and can be used in smaller amounts for the same effect.

Where did you get the idea that the pesticides commonly used before the common use of neonicotinoids were less toxic?

(They might be less toxic to bees and the zooplankton mentioned in the OP, but they were more toxic to, e.g., human agricultural workers.)

Because the fish were alive.

No, organophosphates were killing the fish, even at very low exposures.

source? I can’t see that in the article. The article states that when neonicotiniods were used, fish stocks collapsed.

From this, there are only two valid conclusions;

Pesticides was not previously being used, or the previous pesticide was less dangerous.

Or there is some other factor they didn't control for.

I'm sorry, let me make sure I understand what you're asking. Are you seriously asking for a source to back up the claim that organophosphate pesticides can be toxic to fish?

I cannot see in the article that organophosphates were used around Lake Shinji before the introduction of neonicotinoids.

I certainly can’t see in the article that more fish died before the introduction of neonicotinoids.

Modern agricultural systems are built on the mass usage of systemic insecticide treatments (whether necessary or not). Neonicotinoids are almost certainly better than what came before them, although they have a limited useful life as insects inevitably develop resistance.

Phasing these chemicals out requires a new sustainable approach to pest management - more buy-in from farmers for IPM approaches that don't involve routine use of toxic chemicals. Assistance and training programs need to be put in place to achieve this before regulatory restrictions should be applied.

Neonicotinoids replaced much more toxic pesticides. Not sure we want to go back to the old ones.

Most definitely not. This is what happens. Article also contains a good summary of how the science was manipulate to get the ban in place.

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2019/01/09/with-the-bee-c...

Interesting article. It supports my statement that prior pesticides were more toxic (read paragraph on organophosphates).

Thanks for the link. I found the article to be pretty convincing until I decided to check out the WaPo article the author references in this paragraph:

> Pyrethroid insecticides are supposedly low in toxicity to mammals and birds, but as the Washington Post has reported, it turns out they are highly toxic to most insects, including beneficial insects like honeybees; in fact they are considered far more harmful to bees than any neonic.

In the linked WaPo article, though, the only mention of "Pyrethroid" is this:

> Since the E.U. moratorium went into effect in 2014, farmers in England have struggled with increased pest pressure, Carreck said. Many have turned to pyrethroid pesticides, which have unknown consequences on bees and other beneficial insects. Pywell emphasized that if the E.U. continues the moratorium, we need to investigate what alternative pesticides are doing to bees.

Because Bayer, formerly Monsanto, has waged an incredibly effective and successful lobbying/PR campaign.

EDIT: Am I being downvoted for the truth? Or because of a very successful and incredibly effective PR campaign?

You are being downvoted because the claim is ridiculous and unsubstantiated. Scientists don't need to be lobbied or prodded into tearing shitty research papers to shreds. It's what they do. Science is an adversarial sport, that's why it works. Scientists aren't exactly paid like bankers, and the one coin they do trade on is their reputations.

Except it’s the science that shows neonicotinoids to be harmful, like the thread you’re commenting on, and the publicly registered lobbyists working for Bayer and previously Monsanto who have successfully politically lobbied for laws that benefit their product, often citing their own paid-for ghost written research, which lobbied public policy makers can often be influenced into accepting as valid.

So yeah, if only the politicians would actually listen to the scientists instead of the lobbyists then neonicotinoids, like Roundup, would be banned, but unfortunately companies like Bayer, and formerly Monsanto, have staged an incredibly effective and successful lobbying / PR campaign.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com