Viewpoint: Why does US still use neonicotinoid insecticides when they’re banned in Europe?

| | May 15, 2018

In late April, the European Union banned a blockbuster trio of neonicotinoid insecticides, marketed by chemical giants Syngenta and Bayer. The decision, motivated by mounting evidence of harm to bees exposed to the chemicals, entrenches a temporary moratorium the EU placed on them back in 2013.

Here in the United States, use of neonicotinoids continues unabated. They’re widely applied to corn, soybean, and cotton seeds before planting. The chemicals suffuse the resulting plants, including their pollen and nectar, poisoning crop-chomping insects.

The EPA’s website currently states that the agency “is not proposing any mitigation”—i.e., limits on neonic use—”at this stage.” I have made a query to an EPA spokesperson seeking updates on the agency’s slow-motion reassessment, and I’ll update this post if I hear back.

Related article:  Neonicotinoids may reduce sperm count, lifespan in male honeybees

Meanwhile, research uncovering the potential unintended effects from neonics continues to pile up. The pesticides are showing up at high levels in the Great Lakes and are likely harming songbirds, as well as bees. Perhaps most troublesome of all for the companies that make them, recent studies have found that neonics don’t seem to boost yields for either corn or soybean growers.

Read full, original post: Europe Just Banned the Chemicals That Lay Waste to Honeybees. But They’re Still Everywhere in the US

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Click the link above to read the full, original article.

5 thoughts on “Viewpoint: Why does US still use neonicotinoid insecticides when they’re banned in Europe?”

  1. Somebody please tell Mother Jones to educate themselves on “nectar” and corn they mention. No; actually don’t do that. Let everyone see how ignorant they are.

  2. Untill now (13.05.2018) there is not one activist, alarmist, scientist,
    politician or a combination of these, who can give a scientifically reliable
    explanation how the systemic working neonicotinoid could get into the bee? After all, they don’t dig up the coated
    seeds and don’t eat from the plant in which it is locked up. The highest
    amounts of NN ever measured ​​in pollen and nectar were, in 2015, three
    nanograms per liter (or 0,000.000.003 g / l); in 2016 these were six nanograms
    / liter, measured in Canada and Poland, where against the prescriptions
    winter-dosage was used for summer seed: therefor the concentration NN was still
    insufficiently diluted. According to the stated opponent of
    neonicotinoids the toxicologist Lautier the lethal dose of NN is 3 nanograms
    per bee. Therefor the bee should have eaten (in 2015) 1000 cc contaminated
    nectar or pollen: in 2016 only 500 cc. To understand it well, in one day
    [!], because the bee is perfectly able
    to break down the poison, according

    to a pure scientific study commissioned by the Dutch government. Greenpeace has
    paid a number of scientists to write a program in order to get all pesticides
    banned, starting with neonicotinoids. To keep this hidden, a secret fund was
    set up: see BeeGate; UNCN Task Force. It is forgotten that neonicotinoids were
    invented to limit the number of sprays with much heavier pesticides over a crop
    and only to kill gnawing insects. In the case of leeks, for example, they were
    18 sprays which killed everything within their reach, so everything that flew
    and crept around. The ban on NN will undoubtedly lead to the re-use of
    old-fashioned pesticides: in this respect, the manufacturers of pesticides do
    not have to


    Translated by
    Google also…..


    By Udo Pollmer

    For years, researchers have been watching the global decline in the bee
    population with concern. Often, pesticides are blamed for dying. Wrong, says
    Udo Pollmer. Blame be the beekeepers themselves. Bees are dying worldwide. At
    the same time we receive reports, pesticides would put an end to the beloved
    bee Maya. Strangely enough, in the past when the farmers were using heavy
    insecticides, almost nobody took care about the bees.

    The examination
    of plant protection products for bee danger before approval is a recent
    achievement. There above, farmer and beekeepers have a long history working
    together. To ensure the pollination of the crops, they deduct the means and
    timing of the application. But since the bees are taken into consideration, one
    bee-loss chases the next. What’s going on there?

    True, there are more bee losses today than in the past. But the most important
    cause is not even mentioned: It is the ennobling. Although several bee species
    are suitable for beekeeping, practically only one species is used worldwide. This
    high-performance bee had to give way to our northern bees. This was robust, had
    no problems with bad weather as with an unsatisfactory supply of nectar and

    Northern bees
    were only moderate honey gatherers

    To the chagrin of the beekeepers these animals were stinging and only moderate
    honey collectors. That’s why our beekeepers began around 1950 to eradicate the
    native northern bees. So they wanted to prevent their drones breed with the
    pure-bred high-performance queens and jeopardize the ambitious breeding goals.

    The northern bee was replaced by the Carinthian bee, which is native to the
    Danube basin to the Balkans. Thanks to intensive cultivation, it’s todays ideal
    livestock: hard-working, with good sense of direction, she sits quietly on the
    honeycomb, does not sting, raves only rarely, is cheap to maintain in winter
    and develops quickly in the spring.

    Beekeepers have
    carelessly transplanted their high-performance bee from Carinthia into distant
    ecosystems, and that’s where misery began. Nectar and pollen have different
    nutritional values, depending on the flowers. Some are even poisonous. Of
    course, the bees avoid venomous flowers when that’s possible. But if they are to swarm in huge
    monocultures, they have no choice.

    It is no coincidence that the largest loss of peoples is due to the California
    almond blossom. The tree provides amygdalin containing a blue-acid, which is
    quite toxic to bees. If bee colonies enter, all reflexively suspect pesticides.

    No laboratory is
    looking for …

    The intestinal flora of the bee usually takes over the detoxification of plant
    antibodies. But it’s not always enough. Especially if it is damaged by
    antibiotics such as tylosin or by streptomycin, with which fruit trees are treated.
    After no laboratory is looking for that.

    Instead, pesticides are analyzed, and when you find almost nothing, so explain
    environmentalists, you can see how risky ultratrace already are.

    Unfortunately, the Carinthian bee has an angelic-patience. Gentle beings are
    not only nice to the people, but also to the Varroa mite. Beekeepers introduced
    these parasites from Asia a few decades ago. The parasite isn’t dangerous for
    the native bees, they’ll combat mites in the hive consistently. Their peoples
    are healthier, but they supply too little honey.

    The world is
    asking for new bees

    The Varroa is not only a bloodsucker, it also spreads diseases. Before the time
    of the mite, the immune system of the Carinthian bee was able to cope with most
    pathogens. But since some viruses have found out that the mite is a kind of
    hypodermic needle, the situation changed.

    The pathogens got in the bloodstream of the bee through the bite of the mite.
    The new viruses, such as the DWV, do exactly what is supposed to be pesticides:
    the bees lose their orientation, get lost in strange hives and thus carry on
    the disease.

    We need a turnaround in breeding, we need bees that are adapted to the
    particular ecosystem, even when stitching increases and the honey harvest


    London-Shafir I et al: Amygdalin in almond nectar and pollen – facts and
    possible roles. Plant Systematics and Evolution 2003; 238: 87-95

    Ayestaran A
    et al: Toxic but drank: gustatory aversive compounds induce post-ingestional
    malaise in harnessed honeybees. PloS One 2010; 5: e15000

    Hurst V et
    al: Toxins induce ‘malaise’ behaviour in the honeybee (Apis mellifera). Journal of
    Comparative Physiology A 2014; 200: 881–890

    Maurizio A: Über ein Massensterben von Bienen, verursacht durch Pollen von
    Ranunculus puberulus Koch. Verhandlungen der Schweizerischen Naturforschenden
    Gesellschaft 1941; 149-150

    Pfuhl A, Pollmer U: Natürliche Gifte in Pollen und Nektar. EU.L.E.nspiegel
    2014; H.1-2: 21-27

    Stafford CA
    et al: Infection with a plant virus modifies vector feeding behavior. PNAS 2011; 108:

    Pfuhl A: Die Globalisierung der Krankheiten. Natürliche Gifte in Pollen und
    Nektar. EU.L.E.nspiegel 2014; H.1-2: 28-34

    Oliver R: Sick Bees – Part 18F2-Colony collapse revisited – plant
    allelochemicals. American Bee Journal 2013; 153: 179-186

    Shah KS et al: Localization of deformed wing virus (DMV) in the brains oft
    he honeybee Apid mellifera Linaeus. Virology Journal 2009; 6: e182

    PL et al: The transmission of deformed wing virus between honeybees (Apis melllifera
    L) by the ectoparastic mite Varroa jacobsoni Oud. Journal of Invertebrate
    Pathology 1999; 73: 101-106

    Comman RS et
    al: Pathogen webs in collapsing honey bee colonies. PLoS One 2012; 7: e43562

    • “The highest amounts of NN ever measured in pollen and nectar were, in 2015,three nanograms per liter (or 0,000.000.003 g / l); in 2016 these were six nanograms / liter, measured in Canada and Poland, where against the prescriptions winter-dosage was used for summer seed: therefor the concentration NN was still insufficiently diluted”. It’s called the Druckrey–Küpfmüller equation look it up mauki.

      • I do not have tolook for that, because I know the fantasy story of the sub-lethal effects of Dave Gould et al. I have held a scientific discussion with the Dutch toxicologist Henk Tennekes (another dubious scientist) in which I asked him the same two crucial questions I asked you once before 1: do you have a reliable, tried and tested scientifically study for me (one that has not yet been refuted), how the neonicotinoids would have got in the digestive tract of the bee? After all, they do not dig up or eat the coated seeds, neither they eat from the crops, don’t swim in the water around the greenhouses, and don’t eat the other plants that could have absorbed releasing neonicotinoids? According the big EFSA study, neonicotinoids are almost never present in nectar and polls. And 2: if you held neonicotinoids responsible for CCD, how could CCD happen in
        parts of the world where nobody used neonicotinoids, and how is it possible that beekeepers in the middle of areas where every farmer uses NN did not suffer from CCD? Untill
        now 22.05.2018, not one professor, adversary of neonicotinoids, ngo or even the EFSA, can give a plausible explanation for this. With that, your Druckrey-Küpfmüller equation thesis has become an incredible fairytale story.

Leave a Comment

News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.

Send this to a friend