The world’s most widely used insecticides would be banned from all fields across Europe under draft regulations from the European commission, seen by the Guardian.
The documents are the first indication that the powerful commission wants a complete ban and cite “high acute risks to bees”. A ban could be in place this year if the proposals are approved by a majority of EU member states.
Bees and other pollinators are vital for many food crops but have been declining for decades due to habitat loss, disease and pesticide use. The insecticides, called neonicotinoids, have been in use for over 20 years and have been linked to serious harm in bees.
But whether it’s fake science or not this is entirely ridiculous:
There is a strong scientific consensus that bees are exposed to neonicotinoid pesticides in fields and suffer serious harm from the doses they receive. There is only a little evidence to date that this harm ultimately leads to falls in overall bee populations, though results from major field trials are expected soon.
However, the European commission (EC) has decided to move towards implementing a complete ban now,
Ban before the results of the trials? Now that is fake…..
“There is a strong scientific consensus…”
… the standard go-to position who wants their argument to be unassailable without bothering with supplying facts.
There have been many unpublished trials by companies in the field, perhaps they should have been forced to publish those before licences were issued.
It’s the strong version of the Precautionary Principle — Vorsorgeprinzip — which is so beloved by the Fourth Reich.
Politicians are a couple of generations past any threat of starvation. Virtue signalling is now more important than food production.
Recently dealt with by Matt Ridley
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/neonicotinoids-and-bees/
Very enlightening and ought to be another nail in the coffin of the enviro-activists but..
Is this the one where the patent has expired so they are bringing in a new insecticide that is going to produce royalties?
You could improve that article enormously with one simple change: the elimination of one letter. The letter in question being R from DRAFT in the first sentence
And when food production plummets and insect pests are added to the human swarm already set to swamp the continentals?
Do the EU nation scum have another set of regs for that?
A large number of the ‘elites’ of the west hate and despise the progress and culture of their own nation. They want to see things made harder for everyone, although of course they imagine their life of privilege will still continue.
Neonicotinide shares the same problems as Glyphosphate, Nitrate fertilisers and many other useful chemicals in that they are pumped into the environment on industrial scales.
Farming isn’t done in a QC lab where dosages are strictly controlled, it is done in the cold and dirty fields where no one sees the harms caused by long term build ups and exposure until it is too late.
Using these chemicals on a rotational basis would be a better solution but no research will be done in that area because the results would take too long to show.
Even if we botch Brexit, which looks likely given the Mad Blu Labour cow is in charge, at least we’ll not be subject to crap like this. Or if we are we stand a much better chance of turning it round than if we were in the EU.
The next one coming down the line will be the banning of Roundup, or glyphosphate (sp)? to it’s friends.
These nutjobs won’t be happy until we’re all back in the fields.
The organics think all chemicals are bad. Especially carbon.
Neonicotinoid. Interesting word to break down. Could it have nicotine in it, by chance? You know, that stuff produced by tobacco and other plants to protect themselves from pests.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_8761_b_6323626.html
The Huffpo article suggests that the guy in Harvard leading this idiocy is not terribly reliable…
The effects of a remote, decadent government.
“Neonicotinide shares the same problems as Glyphosphate, Nitrate fertilisers and many other useful chemicals in that they are pumped into the environment on industrial scales.
“harms caused by long term build ups””
Your imagined belief.
BTW, Glyphosate breaks down in the environment within a week. Kill weeds, plant new in a week.
@BobRocket
Do you ever speak to farmers? I do, and I can assure you that the days of dowsing your crops with pesticide and fertiliser are long gone. These products aren’t cheap, and farming is a a relatively low-margin business. The farmers I know spend as much time on spreadsheets trying to calculate the minimum inputs they need, as they do on tractors treating their crops – not just because they’re concerned about their environment (though almost all of them are), but because they’ll go bust if they over-treat.
BiF: Neonicotinoid. Interesting word to break down.
Quite so. In days gone by, allotment holders used to collect their cigarette ends and place them in a jar of water. The resulting marinade was used as a cheap topical insecticide.
Precautionary principle in action. The same one they want to use to send us all back to the forest (global warming) and the same one used over the last thirty years to kill around 300m people, mostly poor and brown people (ddt ban).
They wont learn because they dont care
@BiF The organics think all chemicals are bad.
Not quite all chemicals. They’re very happy for you to use as much ‘Bordeaux mixture’ as you like. Their understanding of science is on the same level as that of homeopaths.
Is the precautionary principle (doing nothing) a thing?
e.g. having an abortion involves risk. not having one involves childbirth; giving birth involves risk.
And so with nearly everything. You could use the precautionary principle to justify hanging someone for stealing a paper handkerchief.
But they did the same with so-called Man-made Climate Change: the danger, if we are right, is so great we cannot afford to wait for the evidence.
It is what passes for science these days – burn the witch!
Jorb: DDT was never banned in those countries for mosquito control, only for agricultural use. In fact it’s been used so much that there are now DDT resistant mosquitoes.
Where did I say that anything should be banned and that we should all go and live in mud huts ?
What I said was that these chemicals are used on an industrial scale and that this usage can cause longer term problems.
AgroChemicals have brought huge benefits but they also have downsides if used to excess and that excess can be as simple as using one type to the exclusion of all else.
Resistance to Fipronil and Glyphosate has already been found in the wild, it is only a matter of time before Neonics go the same way, slowly at first and then quickly.
What I was suggesting was to rotate the use of chemicals over time so that buildup of residues in the soil and resistance to any individual chemical is minimised.
‘Do you ever speak to farmers?’
I grew up on a farm and I’m surrounded by farmers.
Chris Miller: They’re very happy for you to use as much ‘Bordeaux mixture’ as you like.
True. My vegetable garden is a lot more ‘organic’ than Soil Association regulations would require. And of course the aimiable sounding Bordeaux Mixture (main active ingedient, Copper Sulphate) is a useful fungicide which turns foliage (on things like vines, prone to mildew in a damp spring) preternaturally green.
‘What I said was that these chemicals are used on an industrial scale and that this usage can cause longer term problems.
AgroChemicals have brought huge benefits but they also have downsides if used to excess and that excess can be as simple as using one type to the exclusion of all else.’
Begging the question fallacy. We have only your assurance.
GC,
‘Imidacloprid is the most widely used insecticide in the world’
‘In 1985, Bayer patented imidacloprid as the first commercial neonicotinoid’
From nothing to most widely used in 20 years but don’t take my word for it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid
Excess. Explain.
Gamecock,
Excess,
1. an amount of something that is more than necessary, permitted, or desirable.
2. an extreme or excessive amount or degree; superabundance
3. going beyond that which can be tolerated
I determine there is an excess of wankerness in your comment so go fuck yourself.
BobRocket:
As I understand it, neonicotinoids can be applied to seeds, and then not reapplied – but still protect the plant as it grows. It would seem that they are the least-likely pesticide to be over-applied, since there is no on-going spraying program involved. Or have I got it wrong?
FurFucks sake,
how hard can this be ?
Short cycle improvisation, fucking insects (or any biological entity) come up against a total chemical block, do they give up and die, do they fuck. If only a couple survive then they breed into a clean environment.
Kills 99% of known germs, that 1% have 100% of the environment to themselves.
Neonics are applied to seeds, to growing plants and just before fruiting (different crops at different times), they are cheaper and more effective (at the moment) and so everyone uses them, this forces adaptation – do you have any clue as to what fuckin Darwin showed us to be true ?
Adapt or Die
Adapt or Die
Best Fit Survives and prospers
If we pump this shit all over the place, the opportunities to adapt are increased, if you can use this stuff sparingly, keeping the bad organisms guessing as to what is coming next then you can stay in front.
Bayer et al are fighting the last war, they have no clue and no solution for what will evolve next.
We are about 5 or 6 years in front of grass deseases
(chew on that)
BobRocket, you present no evidence that farmers use excess.
The concept is stupid. Use of the pesticides is a cost. Farmers don’t spend more than they have to. Additionally, farmers are conservationists, and are not going to harm their environment.
Tell us about some specific farmers who use excess. Or are you just full of shit?