7 ways pesticide companies are spinning the bee crisis to protect profits

[pbmus]

Bees and other pollinators are essential for two-thirds of our global food crops, from apples to watermelons.1 Bee pollination of crops has been valued at $20 billion in the United States2 and $217 billion globally.3,4 Unfortunately, bees and other pollinators are in great peril, with populations rapidly declining worldwide. A strong and growing body of evidence points to exposure to a class of neurotoxic pesticides called neonicotinoids–the fastest-growing and most widely used class of synthetic pesticides–as a key contributing factor to bee declines.5,6,7

Neonicotinoids (also called neonics) are used as seed treatments on more than 140 crops. Virtually all corn and a large percentage of soy, wheat and canola seeds planted in the U.S. are pretreated with neonics, despite research finding that this practice usually doesn’t increase crop yields or benefit farmers.8 Neonics are systemic pesticides that are taken up through roots and leaves and distributed throughout the entire plant, including pollen and nectar. They are persistent and accumulate over time in the environment.

Numerous studies reveal that neonicotinoids can kill bees outright by attacking their nervous systems, while low levels of exposure have been shown to disrupt foraging abilities,9 navigation, learning, communication, memory10 and suppress the immune systems of bees, making them more vulnerable to disease and pests.11 While other factors have been identified as possible contributors to bee declines and hive failure–such as pests,12 diseases, loss of forage and habitat13 and changing climate14--neonicotinoid pesticides are a core problem that must be addressed. Science shows that exposure to neonics is a compounding factor that increases bee vulnerability and decreases natural resilience to external stressors such as varroa mite pests and pathogens.15,16,17,18,19

http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/93/f0/f/4656/FollowTheHoneyReport.pdf

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Poison does kill bees and people and other living things

[roody]

1. Would our Monsanto shills like

to weigh in on this?

[pbmus]

2. mike c will be here in a flash and moh tooo ...

[LeftyMom]

6. Wait, you think mike c is a Monsanto shill?

Who gets to break it to this genius what mike c does for a living?

[pbmus]

7. Oh yeah, I forgot to tell you on a blog that I am an entomologist that

works with bees and knows that monsanto and bayer are just selling us seeds ... nothing to do here but follow the shills ...

[LeftyMom]

8. Wait, you think he's not a real entomologist?

Look, I know you're an expert on DU and who is and isn't a shill because you have 50 posts and you've been here almost a year, but this is a community, and lots of us actually know each other.

So you know how I know mike c is an entomologist? Because a friend of mine took classes from him as an undergrad.

[pbmus]

9. I know that poison kills any living thing when ingested.

And your entomologist is arguing that poison manufactured by 7 poison makers does not kill bees.

If you want to believe what he/she believes about these companies, then you certainly can.

I am not one of those that believe his/her science.

And I really do not care whether he/she is an entomologist or he/she is a sociologist, there argument to defend poison makers is wrong.

Just like climate scientists that deny climate change are wrong.

[LeftyMom]

10. Wow, that has got to be the most fallacious thing I've ever read on DU.

So your argument is that you know what the truth is before you look at the evidence, and if anybody tells you otherwise they're either lying about their qualifications, crooked or just plain wrong?

Then you have the nerve to compare somebody who is looking at that evidence to climate denialists? That's rich, because you're doing exactly what they do- ignoring evidence that doesn't fit your conclusion.

Here's the thing: I know precisely zero about the effect of pesticides on bees. I'm allergic to bees and I can barely grow a garden, and my academic training is in something else entirely.

But if a well-regarded university professor who studies such things tells me what he knows about the subject? I'm going to listen and consider carefully, even if what he says runs counter to my intuition or what I've previously read on the subject. I'm certainly not going to be disrespectful and dickish just because I don't like what I'm being told.

edit: And your argument that "poison kills every living thing when ingested" is just plain stupid. Chocolate kills dogs, tylenol kills cats. Many poisons are only poisonous to some species and minimally harmful or entirely harmless to others. Use common sense, would you?

[pbmus]

12. Thank you for alerting me on who to ignore .... bye

and God will bring the rain.

[BrotherIvan]

3. They're busy in another post, but they'll be here with quotes from their

"skeptics" sites (aka guys in basements who didn't do very well in science class but like to sound all sciencey because Science!) soon. They'll be sure to not read/instantly reject any proof given, then demand more.

[L0oniX]

4. In other words ...woo.

[BrotherIvan]

5. Exactly!

Woo!

[laundry_queen]

11. You hit the skeptic sites bang on

once someone sent me to one of those sites, so I clicked on the link in the article on the site, and it led me to some 'journal' I had never heard of. So I did some sleuthing and found out that 'science journal' was actually a publication funded by none other than...Monsanto! I had a really good laugh about that one.

[BrotherIvan]

13. I am surprised so many are fooled by those sites

Quackwatch is notoriously funded by Big Pharma, but that doesn't stop the woo warriors from linking to it all the time. It's funny that science is about discovery, an open-mindedness to the possibilities that may help us to understand the universe. But the woo warriors, who fight under the banner of Science!, are the most closed-minded of all. As if science is not constantly in flux, always searching for a better, more elegant answer. Sort of like those who prefer to be "right" over finding the truth.