Pesticide believed to kill bees is authorised for use in England
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
The larger issue to me is how warped the debate around saving bees and pollinators has become. I get very frustrated every time I read articles on this topic, because I feel like the way it is presented is very misleading.
It’s always presented in a way that makes it seem like these large farms are dependent on ‘wild’ bees and pollinators. They make it sound like the only thing that matters is our use of evil chemicals, and if you support their use the. You are a piece of shit who doesn’t care about the earth.
In reality, large commercial mono crop farms depend on bee keepers who provide their hives as a service. Their bees are the ones dying en mass, not wild bee populations. You’re not going to find many wild bees or anything else for that matter in these areas, the biome doesn’t support them.
Mono-croping as a practice is an environmental disaster just by it’s nature. There is no biodiversity by design. This in turn makes pests and diseases that harm the beehives brought in by beekeepers that much worse. Then of course, add large scale chemical application on top of that and we’ve created a huge mess.
So really, when you see these articles claiming huge percentages of bees dying, they aren’t wrong. They are just being purposefully misleading about which bees are dying. It is the bees brought in by the “Beekeepers as a service”, not wild bees.
As bad as that is, there is the good thing to remember. Those are ‘farmed’ bees. We can always farm more bees. That might be a hard challenge for the beekeepers, but it’s not the same thing as all the wild bees in the world dying and everyone starving to death. We need to stop confusing the topic with wild bees.
Surely investment in monocrops is affecting wild bee population?
If the pesticides affect farmed bee populations, why shouldn't they in term have the same affect on wild bees? Isn't their physiology going to be the same (or very similar)?
I don't understand what you're trying to say?
I might have gotten a little lost in my angry rant, but what I'm trying to say is many of these articles are not presenting the subject in a fair manner.
If the pesticides harm the beekeepers bees, they are certainly hurting wild bees too. Collateral damage from farms is real, but the percentage of wild honey bees that come in contact with these farms has to be a small percentage. The fact that these farms destroyed the bee's (and every other animal's) natural habitat in the first place is never mentioned. It's as if they want these farms to continue to operate, but without any chemicals, which in reality is impossible.
It would be best if we got all our food from small, diverse, organic farms but that's unfortunately not the system we have. I wish it was.
Also, not once ever have I seen the history of honey bees explained. Everyone wants to cry over the 'wild' honey bees dying, meanwhile nobody mentions that they are not native to America. They were brought over by European settlers. So any 'wild' populations we have in America were artificially introduced, but they want everyone to think that it's natural and they have always been here. And they want you to think that all farms, no matter the size or type rely on 'wild' honey bees to pollinate their fields.
It's unfortunate, but it's just not how out system works in the United States. So I'm trying to say I'm frustrated explaining this over and over to people that have been mislead by certain groups who only care about pushing their own agenda. If we want have a real conversation about bees, then you can't leave out the history of how they came here, and you can't leave out the large role commercial beekeepers play in our agricultural system.
However, as you say, there are real concerns about wild insect declines, and the same chemicals surely kill both. These are what should get airtime.
It's also important to note that 'wild' honey bees in America are not native. They were brought over by European settlers, and the ones who leave the hive or get left behind have formed the populations we now call 'wild'.
Maybe this article is doesn't apply since it pertains to the UK, and I'm not really familiar with the situation there. But my main point, is in regards to these articles you see all the time, that make it appear as if honey bees are on the verge of extinction.
In regards to the USA, if you write an article about honey been dying, and you purposefully don't mention the history of how they arrived here in the first place, and purposefully don't explain the massive role commercial beekeepers play, it is not very helpful. It is clear they are serving their own agenda.
Application to sugar beets is expected to increase crop yields 13% on a non-critical crop, for a commodity (sugar) that can be easily imported. The virus problem won't ever go away. So this just sounds like subsidizing a particular local agricultural industry, because it's having a hard time competing right now. Will that ever change, why not choose bees or wildflowers over sugar beet farmers? Is it just because they can pay for lobbyists or positive news coverage?
Furthermore, it sounds an awful lot like the massive use of (the most advanced) anti-biotics in cattle feed lots to increase meat yield. That builds up immunity so that those last line of defense drugs are no longer useful to treat humans with deadly diseases. The key here is that there will be a state of permanent emergency where some new poison is always needed to keep profits at their previous artificially high level.
If the local industry can't compete, and it's not necessary other than for a small group's continued profit, maybe it's time to move on. The alternative is a possibly long term loss of pollinators (because the insecticide goes down streams) and the development of stronger/larger reservoirs of mites, moths, molds that could permanently affect all pollinators in England.
Regarding "we can just import it", well yes, but if everyone took that opinion then there wouldn't be any farming anywhere eventually.
don't know if you should trust this link, but it's a decent paper: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/7000/files/cp02zi02.pdf
p.s. The paper ends in the late 90s although little has changed other than the closing of the US cane industry in Hawaii.
I wonder what recent event governments could have used to show that this was a reasonable course of action to take. One that they could manage easily when it is in its early stages, having been warned about it. Perhaps one that affects humnans?
What thing could they have managed better that would make us trust our government in the UK to be using this known bee killer to manage a disease for a greater good later on?
I've also never heard of "bees as a service" here, though I know it exists in the US.
For reference, I'm not a farmer, but live in the British countryside.
Many commercial beekeepers migrate their colonies during the year to provide pollination services to farmers and to reach the most abundant sources of nectar.
Millions of acres of U.S. fruit, vegetable, oilseed and legume seed crops depend on insect pollination, including honey bees.
The USDA has estimated that 80 percent of insect crop pollination is accomplished by honey bees. Approximately one-third of the total human diet is derived directly or indirectly from insect-pollinated plants (fruits, legumes and vegetables).
Crop Dependence
The almond crop is entirely dependent on honey bee pollination. Without honey bees, there would be no almonds. More than 80 percent of the world's almonds are produced in California.3 To pollinate California's approximately 790,000 bearing acres of almonds4 requires more than a million colonies of honey bees.
Numerous other crops are 90 percent dependent on honey bee pollination. Some of those crops include apples, avocados, blueberries, cherries, cranberries and sunflowers. Other crops such as cucumbers, kiwi fruit, melons and vegetables are also pollinated by honey bees.*
It's a rant that's been building up in my head for a while, so I had to get it out :) You see these "Bees are dying" stories all the time now, and they use the same sketchy logic, and like to present the topic in a very self serving way.
In regards to this specific story, the article admits that sugar beets are not a flowering crop. There would be no reason for wild honey bees to travel in these fields.
But collateral damage from chemicals washing into waterways, or some bees flying onto the property I'm sure is a big problem. But enough to endanger the entire wild population?
More arable land than nearly any other nation, comparatively thinly populated, early leader in mechanized farming, steady consolidation of small family farms into large corporate ones for many generations.
Since I posted my original comment, I was interested to find out more. My wife knows a couple of wives of farmer, so she asked 2 on my behalf, and both said they don't do anything like this, and haven't heard of it either. Might depend what crops you are farming, and where?
Even though farms are smaller in the UK, am I correct in assuming that many farmers still practice mono-crop? If they do, then depending on wild pollinators alone is never going to be the best strategy. Crop yields will always increase significantly by introducing farmed bee-hives.
Here is an article I found from the UK Bee Farmers Association https://beefarmers.co.uk/working-with-other-sectors/contract...
It says in the organization even runs a 'National Pollination Service' with a sitting 'Pollination Secretary'.
I think beekeeping is a very interesting industry. I'm sure many people in the UK and the States are probably unaware of these practices and how integral they are to farming.
Also it's important to note that anything we call a 'wild' honey bee now is just a descendant of a once 'domesticated' variety, originally brought over by European settlers. So if you trace it back far enough, protecting 'wild' bees is sort of funny since it is an 'artificial' element we introduced to our environment in the first place.
My gripe is these articles like to quote decrease in numbers observed by commercial bee keepers. They mislead people into thinking these are the same numbers scientists are observing in the overall wild bee population. Again, in America, something we introduced in the first place. They were not native.
I think it is important to understand that mono crop farms, with crops that depend on pollinators, work closely hand in hand with commercial bee keepers. I have never seen this explained to people by any of these articles, probably because it does not server their agenda.
Collateral damage from mono-crop farming practices (destruction of habitat, mass chemical application) is a big problem, but not being honest about the the history, and purposely hiding the large role commercial beekeepers play is not helpful.
For a bit of added intrigue, cane sugar producers Tate & Lyle were major Brexit supporters in order to get tarrifs on cane sugar dropped.
I’m in Ohio, and I’ve only been keeping bees for 3-4 years now, but I’ve attended lectures and talked to many longtime keepers in my area (Ohio).
I specifically asked about wild bees, and the answer I got was unexpected, but made sense once it was explained to me.
The PhD speaker, who’s worked in pesticide research his entire career, explained that around here American Foul Brood wiped out > 95% of hives in many areas over the span of a decade (70s or 80s?) — and he said there’s no reason to believe that the “wild” bees fared any differently. In fact, he believes we still have wild bees because of natural swarming behavior — meaning our wild bees are heavily linked with the commercially managed hives.
I can’t speak to anywhere else, but it wouldn’t surprise me to discover that the wild and managed bees are essentially the same.
So even if that weren’t a two way street, the wild ones would still be under duress.
Not trying to discount this, as I know basically nothing about pesticides or bees, but doesn't this seem a little circular? The conclusion that the bees in the wild are heavily linked with our bees is based on the assumption that they were fairly similar in the first place, i.e. "there's no reason to believe the wild bees faired any differently". In other words, "the wild bees are doing about the same now because they did about the same before", but without any strong evidence that they did about the same in the first place. I assume I'm missing something?
I’m not aware of any studies, and most would have taken place well before the internet and electronic records were a thing.
I can state that my hives have swarmed several times, so those bees were “out there” — and the genetics I see in 2nd and 3rd generation brood show there’s quite a few different breeds in this area.
Also, I did not mean to suggest wild bees are not in trouble too, my gripe is these articles, without mentioning, like to quote numbers commercial beekeepers have observed in their hives.
They never explain to folks how the commercial bee-keeping industry works. They just want you to think everything is 'natural', and all these giant farms are being pollinated by wild bees alone. They aren't.
You point isn't wrong, the wild and managed bees are essentially the same. The 'wild' honey bees are just domesticated ones that escaped, or didn't come back to the hive. The problem is commercial farming in America tends to be all 'mono-crop' and by it's nature has destroyed any biodiversity and any chance of wild bees thriving. So they depend on commercial beekeepers to come in and do the dirty work.
It goes both ways, it's a mutually beneficial arrangement becuase the beekeepers get access to high quality food for their bees, which will then in turn produce more honey. Unless 75% of the hive dies or fails to return, and the colonies collapse. Which is happening all too often now. It's a really big problem to be sure.
Sounds like you keep bees so you probably are more knowledgeable than me. Sorry, I just get mad because I can think of very few articles I seen on the topic that explain the topic in a reasonable way. It is clear they are trying to push their own agenda.
Good information I found on the National Honey Board website:
1. This particular pesticide comes in the form of a pill, which is planted with the seed.
2. It is very targeted on a particular pest (german name is Rübenrüsselkäfer).
3. Without it, the whole field will be lost.
4. The replacement is a conventional broad band pesticide. It kills everything. He said that after using it once, when he walked the field he saw all kinds of dead bugs and worms - which are kinda important for the soil as well. He said "farming like this makes no sense" and stopped growing sugar beets.
The real killer however is this:
5. Sugar beets do not blossom.
Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding this.
If they don't blossom, Bees will not really pick them up from the sugar beets. i.e. this isn't like using the pesticide on a flowering plant where the bees will be picking up the chemical.
Interesting?
It still seems there would still be some overall impact on groundwater to some level, as well as risks if the crop is planted in rotation with a different crop.
I have no clue whether or not, and how, the bees will pick up this poison from this application. Maybe it gets diluted and never harms bees. Maybe it still gets out and to them.
I tried to look for papers and the first two I found came to opposing conclusions and both of them looked sketchy af.
Which is fine, as long as no weeds or mushrooms grow in that entire field, and a freak rain doesn’t rinse it into the drainage ditches where weeds and mushrooms absolutely grow, in abundance.
11 other countries have joined in the emergency authorization so its not just a UK thing.
This is not a pro/against post about Thiamethoxam. The studies seem a bit divided, and the UK banned out of abundance of caution from a European Food Safety Authority study, versus a larger global study.
The problem we have is that there's lots of us and we're pretty insatiable.
Larger mammals like bear, lynx, and wolf were extinct or on their way out. Large birds of prey were aggressively persecuted. There was even land reclamation as far back as Roman times.
Humans have been dominant over wildlife in Britain for a long time. There are probably American zip codes areas that have more untouched landscape than the whole of britain.
It seems like most of the problems we have as a society are because we choose expedient solutions rather than careful solutions to problems.
Additionally, it is likely that honeybees are native to Britain: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250278609_Are_honey...
The greater issue here though is that if honeybees are affected, there are likely many other bee species and insects that are affected that we _aren't_ protecting.
I don't know specifically about Britain, but most bee species are solitary, and without a hive, they're not as vulnerable to disease, or poison transferred back to their home. Other types of bees accidentally exposed would likely only die themselves, not quickly spread it to and kill other populations.
Which world are you living in?
Sooner or later it becomes a question of survival.
For a successful civillization reality must take precedence over public relations for Nature cannot be fooled.
People are just fing resistant to change and we've really made a mess in a lot of ways not good for the hive or the bess and unbound externality called willful ignorance is burning away at the roots of society, jeopardizing the tree of consciouness.
It's more than a travesty.
https://pollinator.cals.cornell.edu/threats-wild-and-managed...
The impact of neonicotinoids on bumble bees is more in agreement. The majority of lab, semi field, and field studies report negative implications of neonicotinoids. Of four field studies investigating bumble bees [23-26], three report such effects [23, 25, 26]. These bees are about 2-3 times more sensitive than honey bees to neonicotinoid toxicity [13, 27, 28].
For example, we may have replaced neonicotinoids with massive use of something else, causing even worse problems.
My guess would be that we just don't have the data, but it's an interesting question.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-07/bayer-clo...
Those who profit are not those who are harmed -- is this not crystal clear that politics must resolve toxic (and highly profitable) chemical industry practices ?
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/news/pesticides-efsa-examine-e...
They do later tell you "11 countries to allow emergency use of the product" and "The UK ... joined EU countries including Belgium, Denmark and Spain in signing emergency authorisations", but easy to miss on the first skim.
That doesn't of course imply that it's a great idea. A 25% decline in £18m worth of sugar doesn't really sound like a big enough deal, but maybe localized short-term use of chemical weapons also isn't such a big deal, I don't know?
edit:Welp, I can't read. Seems it's also temporary emergency use.
That said, this is absolutely nothing to do with Brexit - unless Belgium and the Netherlands also left the EU without us noticing. The UK is neither the first nor the only country doing it.
That doesn't make it right, but it does make the Guardian's slant wrong (and I speak as a Guardian reader).
Europe's sentiment is they want more security and are happy to give away their freedoms without a thought. Then you realise how important your freedom was to you when it's gone.
There's also the fact that neonics ao. are persistent for at least a couple of years, affecting the crops after the one for which they were originally intended. That is why along with temporarily allowing certain pesticides, certain crops are being prohibited or enforced as a follow up crop.
It gets complicated pretty quickly. Laissez-faire indeed...
https://www.perfectbee.com/blog/bees-and-pesticides-what-is-...
The title is accurate depending on what “believed” means. I suppose I gave my kid vaccines believed to cause autism.
I don't agree with it (modern sugar use is evil), but it has nothing to do with lowering food and safety standards as, as mentioned, some EU countries have done the same.