
Ban pesticides linked to bee deaths, say MPs - drucken
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22021104
======
unclebucknasty
The article clearly states that the stuff kills bees. No one argues that. So,
rather than debate for two years exactly how many bees are killed by these
pesticides, why not all agree that there is a serious die off issue that
doesn't need to be exacerbated and ban the stuff. If bees completely rebound,
then great. If not, then there's one less thing making the problem worse.

This is purely an economic issue for the companies involved. The first
pesticide of this type was registered with the EPA in 1994, with others
registered as recently as 2003, and several others still undergoing review.
So, these are all relatively recent to market and our food production is not
dependent upon their use. Those arguments are simply a red herring. The
chemical companies are interested in recouping their research investment and
protecting this relatively new market.

Nothing wrong with that goal on its face, but the question is, at what cost?

------
tokenadult
I was just reading _On Food and Cooking: The Science and Lore of the Kitchen_
by Harold McGee, and that reminded me how recent the presence of Old World
honeybees ( _Apis mellifera_ ) is in the New World.

[http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/Apis_mellifer...](http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/Apis_mellifera/)

Those bees were brought here to the United States by European settlers, and
their progress across North America is part of the rather recent historical
record.

It seems prudent to me to check the trade-offs between using different
pesticides and continuing to use those apparently implicated in reduction of
bee numbers recently in the United States. A report I heard on National Public
Radio included comments by companies that distribute the more recent
pesticides that those can be reformulated to reduce risk to bees, which seems
like a sensible thing to do. What was happening to plants and especially food
crops before those pesticides (and, for that matter, before _Apis mellifera_
bees existed in North America) would be well worth considering carefully
before deciding what pattern of regulation to follow. Environmental trade-offs
happen all the time: they have been happening since long before _Homo sapiens_
came on the scene. Perhaps developing new methods of applying the pesticides
most in doubt may be enough to preserve healthy populations of honeybees in
the United States.

~~~
nmb
On Food and Cooking is a fantastic book.

------
josscrowcroft
_"Neonicotinoids will kill bees, let me be absolutely clear about that."_

– DEFRA's chief scientist, who refuses to support a ban on bee–decimating
pesticides. Nice touch.

~~~
unclebucknasty
Yeah, what's also funny is how the goalposts keep moving. This stuff was
initially sold as not harmful to beneficial insects like bees. Now, it's "OK,
we know for a fact that this stuff will kill bees. The question is, how many?"

------
liliakai
Go UK, go! Here's a petition to ban them in the US, to be presented to the EPA
this Earth Day (4/22): [http://www.causes.com/causes/430648-bee-the-
change/actions/1...](http://www.causes.com/causes/430648-bee-the-
change/actions/1686797?recruiter_id=181038230)

~~~
justincormack
The UK is voting against the European proposal to ban these, so despite this
petition they will probably not be banned.

------
uptown
Previous discussion about bees here with some good insights:
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5460508>

------
vanderZwan
That's a very ambiguous headline...

------
OGinparadise
"Linked" is too weak of a word, but sadly, by the time the link it's proven it
may be too late.

Before the government bans the product you make or use, causing you a lot of
monetary loss, reason says that they should think twice. So, IMO nothing will
be done, just yet. They are too many special interests and evidence apparently
is not conclusive. Last year I remember reading that cell towers _might_ be
the culprit, interfering with their navigation or something like that.

~~~
spodek
If only people had this perspective before taking the risk at first, we
wouldn't act like pollution was the norm and unpolluted nature was the
aberration. I like your logic, but I would have applied it before introducing
something that kills a species we don't want to kill.

"Before the government _allows the use of_ the product _never before seen in
nature_ , causing you a lot of monetary loss, reason says that they should
think twice. So, IMO nothing will be done, just yet. They are too many special
interests and evidence apparently is not conclusive."

The cell tower stuff was a red herring.

~~~
OGinparadise
_Before the government allows the use of the product never before seen in
nature, causing you a lot of monetary loss, reason says that they should think
twice._

They think and experiment more than twice and pesticides are heavily
regulated. The problem is that by the time symptoms show, it can be too late.
On the other hand, virtually everything is a tradeoff: the houses we live in,
newspapers we read, the meat we eat, the beer we drink etc etc is harmful to
some habitat. So if you want certain things, you have to tolerate some other
things. Pesticides, fertilizers and GM crops enable us to get much more from
the same acre so they are very tempting to use.

Not saying that I'm cool with having all bees die off though.

~~~
unclebucknasty
The problem with your logic is that it assumes everyone is forthright and
honest, even with tremendous amounts of money involved. We know what history
and human nature teach us about that assumption.

These pesticides were initially sold as unharmful or minimally toxic to bees.
Now that we are using it, we have experts telling us that it will absolutely
kill bees. That's a pretty dramatic distinction.

Do you honestly believe that in all of their "thinking and experimenting more
than twice", no one ever observed that this stuff killed bees and, on the
contrary, everyone actually believed it to be unharmful to them?

~~~
waterlesscloud
If you don't trust the experimental results, exactly what process are you
proposing?

More experiments? Will you trust those?

~~~
unclebucknasty
Your comments beg the question. The "experimental results" you reference are
meaningless if they are not properly disclosed and utilized.

In fact, seems to me that an investigation is in order as to how these
supposedly stringent regulatory processes gave us pesticides that were
purportedly safe for bees and other beneficial insects, while we now know that
they are clearly lethal to bees. They specifically stated that their chemicals
do not do something that they clearly do, and that something is ecologically
and agriculturally devastating. I find it very difficult to believe that this
was completely unknown prior to approval. If you are telling me that you
believe it was unknown after utilizing the best processes we have to test and
model, then I would say that we clearly need to ban these pesticides and
approve nothing else until we are better at determining outcomes.

Beyond that, what I would trust is a regulatory process that does not involve
revolving doors between government bureaucrats on the regulatory side and
industry. That and a true democracy wherein politicians are not bought by the
highest bidder. Those are just starting points.

So, no, I would not trust more experiments performed by the same people,
processes, and "oversight" that brought us the last round. You would?

~~~
waterlesscloud
What's the practical alternative, then?

Not the ideal alternative, which we all agree would be nice, but what is
something that might actually work?

~~~
unclebucknasty
I'm not sure that I understand your line of questioning. Are you agreeing that
there seems to be foul play here? Or are you saying that everyone is honest,
but our systems are woefully insufficient? Or both?

Because either would be unacceptable in my view. Yet your point seems to be
that it's the best we have, so we should make do. In fact, if you agree that
the system as-is is very much less than ideal, then it seems that you would
join me in calling for remedy, perhaps using the starting points I've already
identified as a basis.

Instead the very nature of your questioning seems to suggest that people who
call attention to the problem are somehow in the wrong because they don't have
a set of concrete legislation for regulatory change at the ready. It's a bit
of a red herring, wherein you agree with me on principle, but rather than
demanding answers or solutions from those who are at fault, you instead
immediately turn to me and demand solutions, essentially letting those
responsible off the hook.

Odd.

~~~
waterlesscloud
What starting points have you identified for a practical solution?

EDIT-

To simplify what I had here before (and make it hopefully less argumenative):

What system would be verifiable and trustworthy? How would that differ from
what we have now?

~~~
unclebucknasty
I never claimed to offer a specific, "practical" solution and my last comment
pointed out the oddness of you asking me for one vs asking those responsible.

And I'm still not sure why you continue to make that the issue. It's not so
much argumentative as it is odd.

In any event, what I did point out are some of the underlying issues that make
the current system corruptable (i.e. untrustworthy). I don't really feel like
retyping that, so if you're earnestly interested, perhaps you can check my
ancestor comment on this thread.

As far as devising "practical" solutions, surely identifying and addressing
those core issues might be a starting place.

EDIT: But perhaps the real question is: what exactly is your point?

------
crusso
I haven't heard that pesticides were a serious contender for bee death.
Everything I've read so far recently has pointed to the rise of new parasites.

Even TFA has a section entitled "Why are bees in decline?" in which disease
and parasites are the primary culprits.

Seems like a misleading headline and a possibly misguided campaign.

~~~
amalag
So spraying fields with "almost nicotine" that is designed to target insect
nervous systems wouldn't have anything to do with it.

~~~
unclebucknasty
Right. The article clearly states that we are spraying crops that bees
pollinate with pesticides that are known to kill them, but people are still
acting like it's a mystery.

~~~
amalag
It may not kill them outright, some scientists think it affects their nervous
systems and especially their navigation. They go out to forage for nectar but
do not return.

