Honey from across the world is contaminated with potent pesticides known to harm bees, new research shows, clearly revealing the global exposure of vital pollinators for the first time.
Almost 200 samples of honey were analysed for neonicotinoid insecticides and 75% contained the chemicals, with most contaminated with multiple types.
If 75% of honey is contaminated then we might well assume that 75% of bees are.
Neonicotinoids aren’t very damaging, are they?
Saves money on fags and NRT?
“The striking finding is that 75% of our samples had measurable quantities,”
Scientists prove that their ability to test for something grossly outstrips their ability to prove harm at those levels or comment sensibly on their findings. See also radiation levels.
I wouldn’t be surprised if their tests were being tripped by something else as well. Like nicotine. But if they are detecting one part per hundred billion, most sensible people who say who cares?
It’s possible that neonicotinoids are a cause of colony collapse disorder in honey bees.
“If 75% of honey is contaminated then we might well assume that 75% of bees are.”
Not sure that follows at all, but IANA beekeeper. All we can reasonably infer is that 75% of sources of honey are contaminated, and even that might be an overstatement due to blending of honey from different sources.
‘The dose makes the poison.’
We are all ‘contaminated’ with radioactive isotopes from the Windscale and Chernobyl reactor accidents, but so what?
Is the ‘contamination’ in honey bees sufficient dose to be toxic? If not, so what?
‘Vital’ pollinators include: all passing insects, passing animals, air currents. The notion that if honey bees (not the only bees) all died out plant life would disappear, shows an ignorance of evolutionary biology. A man called Darwin wrote a whole book about it.
Any plant species that relies on a single vector for cross-pollination is in a precarious evolutionary state and will have a short spell here on Earth and be replaced by a more successful species.
One for SJW
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/bees-and-pesticides/
Leftist bullshit is a lot deadlier than neonicotinoids.
Social Justice Warrior – “It’s possible that neonicotinoids are a cause of colony collapse disorder in honey bees.”
It is possible there is an international Jewish conspiracy too. Just not very likely.
The evidence for neonicotinoids being responsible is tiny. Even the nutters who claim it, claim that they must be operating with some other effects.
On the other hand the evidence that the variola mite and hunger are responsible is quite strong. Especially hunger caused by a simplistic winter feeding schedule of HFCS lacking in micronutrients.
I don’t know how bad neonicotinoids are for bees. But if I needed to form a view, I’d rely on the science, not bloviating blog commentators.
Social Justice Warrior – “I don’t know how bad neonicotinoids are for bees. But if I needed to form a view, I’d rely on the science, not bloviating blog commentators.”
It is cute that you would cite a “journal” that has become little more than a group of bloviating blog commentators. The New Scientist is not actually science you know. But did you actually read the stuff you quote?
Really? The effect varied from country to country and in some places the insecticide actually had a positive effect? You don’t say. Whatever else you can say, you can be pretty sure Richard Doll did not find tobacco had a positive effect on anyone. It is almost as if some other factor was at work!
Of course you, and they, are also just moving the goal posts. That an insecticide has a bad effect on bees is hardly a surprise. That it would cause a colony collapse is another matter. How do you justify going from one to the other? Especially as similar collapses were recorded across Britain in 1906 and since. You know, back when these chemicals did not exist.
I also liked this bit:
So stop the presses! “Realistic” levels of an insecticide is bad for insects. Who would have guessed? But what is a realistic level? Not the trace levels they have found in the honey I would guess. But, hey, if you drown the little buggers in it, I am sure it will work out bad for their health.
Science is fun when you have all the answers before you start.
Does 200 bees tested actually constitute a valid statistical sample of the bee population worldwide?
I suspect not.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsb/282/1818/20151821.full.pdf
‘A34 (§46)
Summary. There still remain major gaps in our
understanding of how pollinator colony-level (for
social bees) and population processes may dampen or
amplify the lethal or sublethal effects of neonicotinoid
exposure and their effects on pollination services; as
well as how farmers might change their agronomic prac-
tices in response to restrictions on neonicotinoid use and
the resulting positive or negative effects on pollinators
and pollination. While these areas continue to be
researched there is still a limited evidence base to
guide policymakers on how pollinator populations
will be affected by neonicotinoid use or how agricul-
ture will respond to neonicotinoid usage restrictions.’
Meanwhile, Canada is producing record amounts of honey.
75% of bees tested positive for neo-nicotinoid?
The bees are smoking? Popping round the back of the hive for a quick fag?
The smoking/lung cancer thing was more Austin Bradford-Hill than Doll, who went off the rails later.
The food/pollution model of epidemiology is almost certainly 99% bullshit. Animals, especially highly successful ones like bees and humans, are necessarily able to tolerate environmental changes.
During April to June flowering period, NNI exposure had negative effects on colony size in the UK and Hungary, but short-lived positive effects in Germany.
Culture. German bees obviously roll up their sleeves and get on with it.
Quoting “New Scientist” as science! Too funny.
There’s a significant branch of scientists, and they cluster in the environmental branches where entry requirements are lower, who merely want to prove modern capitalism is ruining the world. The bee collapse has seen this in spades.
No mind that people live longer and eat better. That the countryside is not their depiction of being on the brink of collapse. They are the new Savoronolas, preaching a return to purer ways.
Another reference for SJW from
Risk Monger. Lest he think it merely the ravings of a bloviating blogger, he could follow the links, which generally lead to actual research.
We did have a problem with bees dying off for a few years. Wouldn’t the first thing to consider is that the bees that were susceptible to neonicotinoid died off, leaving only the fittest survivors?
“Wouldn’t the first thing to consider is that the bees that were susceptible to neonicotinoid died off, leaving only the fittest survivors?”
No. There is no evidence that bees are susceptible to neonicotinoids. Hence it is a leap to suspect the “less susceptible” survived. Bee sensitivity to neonicotinoids is made up, hence, any reference to neonicotinoids and bees is made up. Your “first thing to consider” is not connected to reality.
There is no evidence that bees are susceptible to neonicotinoids.
No evidence?
I realise regulation is unpopular hereabouts. I’ve seen arguments that the EU neonicotinoid ban may have caused farmers to use more harmful alternatives. But “no evidence” is an obvious lie, so why say it?
This is a question on which “more research is needed” is true. Whatever you think of the ban, you should welcome research like that in the OP which seeks to quantify the effects.
SJW, is there some part of this you don’t understand?
‘While these areas continue to be
researched there is still a limited evidence base to
guide policymakers on how pollinator populations
will be affected by neonicotinoid use or how agricul-
ture will respond to neonicotinoid usage restrictions’
“Continuing research” is not evidence.
I understand it. Evidently you don’t. “Limited evidence” on the extend of harm directly contradicts your “no evidence” of any susceptibility.
And this evidence is ??? Leftards don’t like it isn’t evidence.
You have evidence, or you don’t. “Limited evidence” is stupid.
Limited Evicence IS evidence just as anecdotal evidence is (except for “expert evidence in a few cases) the only permitted evidence in a Court of Law.
SJW is right n this case.
Blended honey from 10 sources will contain neonicotinoids 75% of the time if 13% of the sources each contain neonicotinoids 50% of the time.
LSE didn’t major on Statistics.