EPA issues moratorium on new pesticides that kill birds and bees

Joined
Jan 16, 2012
Messages
16,463
23.si.jpg

Reuters / Eduard Korniyenko

The Environmental Protection Agency has issued a moratorium that will restrict the use of new pesticides that have been blamed for declining bee populations, though the policy does not apply to products currently on the market.

The chemicals in question, neonicotinoids, are a new class of insecticides that affect the central nervous system of insects and result in paralysis and death.

On Thursday, the EPA sent letters to companies that have applied for permits to use neonicotinoid pesticides, telling them the moratorium stands until they have assessed the risks on bee populations. The pesticides are known to have chronic effects on honey bees, birds, butterflies and other pollinator species, and are considered to be a factor in overall pollinator declines.

The EPA has made the study of new pollinator risks an agency priority, but the moratorium has no effect on the pesticides already on the market. The EPA also relies on industry-funded science that often contradicts peer-reviewed studies.

The neonicotinoid moratorium affects the chemicals Imidacloprid, Dinotefuran, Clothianidin and Thiamethoxam. According to research by Beyond Pesticides group, Imidacloprid has been found to be highly toxic to bees and other beneficial insects, upland game birds, and can leach into groundwater.

Studies have found it disrupts mobility, navigation and feeding behavior. Other studies have discovered a decrease in foraging activity, olfactory learning and decreased hive activity.

The chemical Clothianidin, when used in Germany, caused a massive bee die-off in 2008, with the country subsequently banning the chemical pending further investigation.

This is an important first step in recognizing that these types of bee-killing pesticides have a devastating effect on our pollinators, and our agricultural systems and the environment,” Jonathan Evans, senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, told RT. “Unfortunately it is only a first step and doesn’t address the large scale of these same pesticides that are already approved.”

In essence, the EPA has recognized these products are dangerous and they are not going to allow new ones,” he continued, before adding that it “will do nothing about the existing harm that is occurring to…pollinators from already registered products.”

Evans said nearly every day there are new studies linking the impacts of neonicotinoids and other types of systemic pesticides to pollinator decline and adverse environmental harm, but the trouble remains with the broken US pesticide policy. He also blamed the EPA’s own Office of Pesticide Programs, saying it largely protects the chemical industry and rubber stamps getting new pesticides on the market.

The Center for Biological Diversity has brought several lawsuits against the EPA’s support of pesticide use, but the judge has usually ruled in favor of the EPA.

The pesticide laws are very tilted towards agriculture, and what happens is [a company] provides a cost-benefit analysis where, if [they] can determine if [they] can make so much more profit on producing ‘X’ amount more corn or soy, [the EPA] view that as counterbalancing negative environmental impacts,” said Evans.

He said that in the US there is a “spray first, ask questions later mentality, as opposed to using pesticides when they are really necessary.”

Now you have the agricultural industry treating every seed – over 80-90 percent of corn or soy are treated with neonicotinoids before they are even planted. They are just bombing everything on the front end to potentially devastate any types of living organisms, even [insects] that would be beneficial, like pollinators.”

Continued - EPA issues moratorium on new pesticides that kill birds and bees

Source note...
Information presented on this website is considered public information (unless otherwise noted in material) and may be distributed or copied for non-commercial (personal, educational, research etc.) purposes.



Aside - Monsanto pledges $4 million to help save monarch butterflies

Biotech giant Monsanto announced it would spend $4 million on efforts to save the monarch butterfly population after the company’s pesticides have been accused of destroying the insects’ habitat and bringing them to the brink of extinction.

Since Roundup’s introduction, the number of monarch butterflies has drastically dropped, from one billion in 1997 to 56.5 million this past winter, according to the Center for Biological Diversity. The finding was cited in a February lawsuit filed by the National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) against the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), over the agency’s approval of Roundup for use.

“Glyphosate has wiped out the milkweed they need to survive,” Sylvia Fallon, a senior scientist at NRDC, said at the time. “EPA completely ignored the impact on monarchs when it granted this new approval, and seriously underestimated the toxicity for people.”

The orange-and-black spotted monarchs are renowned for migrating several thousand miles across the US, Canada and Mexico. In addition to their natural beauty, monarch butterflies play an important role in ecology. They carry pollen from plant to plant, helping fruits and flowers to produce new seeds.

“While weed management has been a factor in the decline of milkweed habitat, the agricultural sector can absolutely be part of the solution in restoring it,” said Monstanto President and Chief Operating Officer Brett Begemann in a statement Tuesday.
 
Last edited:
Every single source they provided is a special interest group - did anybody else catch that?

Meanwhile, a point that is conveniently always overlooked...bee populations are not actually declining:

596f93a779932c2ba35fa0232664b584.jpg
 
Every single source they provided is a special interest group - did anybody else catch that?

Meanwhile, a point that is conveniently always overlooked...bee populations are not actually declining:

596f93a779932c2ba35fa0232664b584.jpg

My chart says something different. Of course, its only a U.S. chart but I assure you that a global chart of equal interpretation is merely a mouse click away. How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go with regard to special interests, angela? That's a serious question, now. Be careful. :)

BeeHiveUSPopulationChart1947-20132.png
 
Last edited:
I have no trouble going head to head with special interest groups, because their facts never stand up to scrutiny. Which, of course, always leads to teeth gnashing and wailing about science being paid for and other such rot, even though they can't actually disprove the evidence.

In the meantime, the devil is always in the details. Did you notice that your chart indicates that the supposed decline predates neonicotinoids?

And wouldn't the fact that neonicotinoids have been banned for at least a couple years (more in France and Italy) in Europe but had no effect on the bee populations there seem to contraindicate some of the assertions?

For the record, my mind isn't made up on this topic yet, and that's part of the reason why. I just hate seeing you liberals celebrating government controls when the data isn't even clear yet.
 
Last edited:
Did you notice that your chart indicates that the supposed decline predates neonictoids?

No, it doesn't. Neonicotinoid family is broad, angela. Although developed in the '70s, they became widely used in the mid '90s. I believe that by around 2007 or 2008 they represented roughly 25% of the global market for insecticides. I suppose that I could chase down a global graph if'n you want.

European Union banned neonicotinoid pesticides blamed for destroying bee population back in 2013. So we have to be careful with some of these charts and figures if we want to keep the numbers honest globally.
 
Last edited:
Survey Reports Fewer Winter Honey Bee Losses
By Kim Kaplan
May 15, 2014


WASHINGTON, May 15—Total losses of managed honey bee colonies from all causes were 23.2 percent nationwide for the 2013-2014 winter, according to the annual survey conducted by the Bee Informed Partnership and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

This represents a noticeable drop in mortality compared to the 30.5 percent loss reported for the winter of 2012-2013 and compared to an eight-year average of winter losses of 29.6 percent. Previous surveys found total colony losses of 21.9 percent in 2011-2012, 30 percent in 2010-2011, 33.8 percent in 2009-2010, about 29 percent in 2008-2009, about 36 percent in 2007-2008, and about 32 percent in 2006-2007.

Losses remain above the level that beekeepers consider economically sustainable. This year, almost two-thirds of the beekeepers responding to the survey reported losses greater than the 18.9 percent level that beekeepers say is acceptable.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2014/140515.htm

CCD, it is a real problem: Honey Bee Health and Colony Collapse Disorder

Honey bees, which are a critical link in U.S. agriculture, have been under serious pressure from a mystery problem: Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), which is syndrome defined as a dead colony with no adult bees or dead bee bodies but with a live queen and usually honey and immature bees still present. No scientific cause for CCD has been proven.
 
Did you notice that your chart indicates that the supposed decline predates neonictoids?

Neonicotinoids began development in the 1970', they required no federal registration until 1984:

Neonicotinoids

The neonicotinoids are a class of insecticides with a common mode of pesticidal action that affects the central nervous system of insects, causing paralysis and death. All of the neonicotinoids were registered after 1984 and were not subject to reregistration.

http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation/groups-pesticides-registration-review#neonic
 
Found this on a bee keeping forum, where the majority of people who actually own bees don't believe it's the neonictoids:

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...ican-bee-colonies-have-been-killed-by-neonics

Bee numbers will not rebound in Europe as a result of the ban on the neonicotinoid insecticides.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22339191

"We have two controls for all of this. One is France; we've had
massive restrictions on these products for over 10 years, have
we seen any improvement in bee health? No.

The other control is Australia where neonicotinoids are used in
exactly the same way as in the UK, same formula same crops
and they have the healthiest bees on the planet. The difference
there is they don't have varroa [mites]."


"What we have been upset about is how [lab based] research
[on the effect of neonicotinoids] has been put into policy. Because
when you repeat it with real bees, real colonies in real fields, you
don't see any effect."

"The varroa mite is key," says Dr Little. "If you don't have varroa
you have healthy bees regardless of whether neonicotinoids
are used. Varroa and bee health are inextricably linked."
 
For the record, my mind isn't made up on this topic yet, and that's part of the reason why. I just hate seeing you liberals celebrating government controls when the data isn't even clear yet.

Well. I'm not a liberal, angela. Of course, I respect your decision to reserve judgement on the science. It doesn't amount to a hill of beans given what the EPA is saying but I respect it. I've actually accepted the notion that you may well be THE most libertarian member on the entire board. I'm serious now.

I don't always jump to accepting such things myself. I imagine we agree that absolute proof in the scientific world is never a reality. Of course, we can surmise...
 
Yeah, things are viewed differently in 2015. Or so the information in the op indicates.

. A quick scan of the forums indicate that the change in opinion that you're asserting does not actually exist in that environment. Again, you're quoting agenda driven tree huggers, and I am quoting people who actually own bees
 
. A quick scan of the forums indicate that the change in opinion that you're asserting does not actually exist in that environment. Again, you're quoting agenda driven tree huggers, and I am quoting people who actually own bees

Gosh. You got me choking there when you said that in such a serious way with the word tree huggers. Anyhow... Which environment are you talking about? Europe? The forum you linked? You lost me, woman.
 
I like to be thorough. Neo-nic-o-tin-oids

If you were thorough, you would not need to resort to attacking my admittedly abysmal typing skills in lieu of admitting that the chart you provided seriously undermines your own position, because you would not have posted it to begin with.

And you certainly would have noticed that the decline was beginning in 1947 when I mentioned it.

Instead you resort to being a spelling troll. And insisting that you're not a liberal despite the fact that you support government controls of pesticides even with no substantial data to support their position.

Yeah, ok.
 
If you were thorough, you would not need to resort to attacking my admittedly abysmal typing skills in lieu of admitting that the chart you provided seriously undermines your own position, because you would not have posted it to begin with.

And you certainly would have noticed that the decline was beginning in 1947 when I mentioned it.

Instead you resort to being a spelling troll. And insisting that you're not a liberal despite the fact that you support government controls of pesticides even with no substantial data to support their position.

Yeah, ok.

Nah, I was just messing with you because you did it to me before. That's all. Seriously now, what environment are you talking about? Europe? Your link? Because we had some bee keepers here in the states on this forum who lost their colonies. As I recall, it was, to their thinking, because of these applications.
 
Last edited:
...you support government controls of pesticides even with no substantial data to support their position.

Yeah, ok.

Angela...did you not support Congressman Mike Pompeo who got together with the Kochs and Monsanto to creat industry backed legislation that undermined states rights? Mercantilist legislation that protected these special interests from a free market? You're not being an honest injun, now. I was dead set against that government control over the people's right to be able to make an informed choice and to compete in a genuine free market.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top