EPA: Those Bee-Killing Pesticides? They're Actually Pretty Useless

[hue]

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2014/10/epa-those-bee-killing-pesticides-theyre-pretty-useless-otherwise

So, there's this widely used class of pesticides known as neonicotinoids, marketed by chemical giants Bayer and Syngenta, that have emerged as a prime suspect in honeybee collapse, and may also be harming birds and water-borne critters. But at least they provide benefits to farmers, right?

Well, not soybean farmers, according to a blunt economic assessment released Thursday by the Environmental Protection Agency (PDF). Conclusion: "There are no clear or consistent economic benefits of neonicotinoid seed treatments in soybeans."

Wait, what?

The report goes on: "This analysis provides evidence that US soybean growers derive limited to no benefit from neonicotinoid seed treatments in most instances."

Hmmm. But at least they're better for farmers than no pesticide at all?

Nope: "Published data indicate that most usage of neonicotinoid seed treatments does not protect soybean yield any better than doing no pest control."

Ouch.

The EPA notes that in recent years, US farmers have been planting on average 76 million acres of soybeans each season. Of those acres, an average 31 percent are planted in seeds treated with neonics—that is, farmers buy treated seeds, which suffuse the soybean plants with the chemical as they grow. So that's about 24 million acres of neonic-treated seeds—an area equal in size to the state of Indiana. Why would farmers pay up for a seed treatment that doesn't do them any good, yet may be doing considerable harm to pollinators and birds? The EPA report has insights: "data from researchers and extension experts ... indicate that some growers currently have some difficulty obtaining untreated seed." The report points to one small poll that found 45 percent of respondents reported finding non-treated seeds "difficult to obtain" or "not available."

[ThoughtCriminal]

1. Sure they're useful

for wiping out the menace of honeybees and evil butterflies.

[blkmusclmachine]

2. ,

,

[appalachiablue]

3. 3.,

[Eko]

4. The first thing wrong

was the title, "EPA: Those Bee-Killing Pesticides? They're Actually Pretty Useless" which was refuted in the article here "prime suspect". A prime suspect is not always the culprit and the title went ahead and said it was the culprit and that the EPA said it was. Then it asked "But at least they provide benefits to farmers, right?" while failing to mention that it does to soil, seed, timber and animal pests as well as foliar treatments for crops including: cereals, cotton, grain, legumes, potatoes, pome fruits, rice, turf and vegetables just not soybeans. Then there is the "one small poll". None of this is good science, none of this is good reporting. Are neonicotinoids bad for the environment? Possibly, but dont give us bad science and even worse reporting. I would rather get to the bottom of the bee problem than chase the popular "culprit".

[Demeter]

5. They are sure good for killing bees, though

[Eko]

6. a prime suspect

is good at killing bees, yeah right. Since when is a suspect in anything automatically guilty? Bias is quite easily shown in some cases, sometimes just as easily as ignorance.

[Chan790]

7. I have a question.

If you were walking down an alley and you came upon a man repeatedly plunging a knife into the corpse of a dead woman, would you also not assume that he killed her?

Saying that you don't believe that neonics that have been linked repeatedly to colony-collapse and for which the process of colony collapse can be explained, but which can never be proven to be the cause, are necessarily the culprit is like saying you don't believe in the theory of gravity because it's only a theory and also cannot be proven.

I'm as empiricist as the next person but at some point, after-the-fact evidence where there can be no in-the-fact evidence and an explanatory methodology has be sufficient for us to say "Yes, this viable explanation which is the only viable explanation, is now sufficient to act."